Religion A Fundamental Source Of Terrorism Criminology Essay

The intuition that faith is a cardinal beginning of terrorist act has been loosely examined since the 9/11 onslaughts. In fact, spiritual motivation has became an indispensable portion of specifying terrorist act in UK and other legal powers including Australia and New Zealand, but has been resisted in others including the United States, Indonesia, and many states in the Middle East, which define terrorist act chiefly by mention to the nature of the injury caused. My article illustrates the troubles in analyzing secular and spiritual motivations. The inclusion of spiritual motivation as an indispensable component of a terrorist activity might promote a procedure of spiritual profiling in which research workers paid undue attending to the faith of suspects or accused individuals. I would reason that this non merely set faith on tests, but it besides diminishes the effectivity and value of the terrorist act Torahs and, furthermore, it encourages favoritism.

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now


Religion putting to deaths. Throughout human history, people have killed in the name of their God. TIME magazine has quoted a statement from a individual named as Marwan in Iraq. “ Yes, I am a terrorist, ” he says. “ Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [ The Koran ] says it is the responsibility of Muslims to convey panic to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim. ” He quotes lines from the surah known as Al-Anfal, or the Spoils of War: “ Against them make ready your strength to the uttermost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike panic into the enemy of Allah and your enemy. ”

“ The jihadis are more spiritual people, ” he says. “ You ask them anything — anything — and they can immediately cite a relevant subdivision from the Koran. ”[ 1 ]

Peoples like Marwan have used spiritual text as their inspiration and beginnings to perpetrate force. But Marwan is non entirely.

On July 29 1994, Paul Hill approached a Pensacola, Florida abortion clinic with which he was familiar. When he spotted clinic physician John Britton and his escort, James Barrett, outdoors, he shot them both at near scope with a scattergun. Hill besides wounded Barrett ‘s married woman, Joan. Following the shootings, Hill laid his scattergun on the land and waited to be arrested. In September 2003, Hill as America ‘s first antiabortion activist was put to decease by the province of Florida. On the Eve of his executing, Paul Hill was smiling and cheerful. ‘I anticipate a great wages in Eden ‘ , he said, ‘I am looking forward to glorification. I do n’t experience remorse. ‘ Hill, a former Presbyterian sermonizer, said he would decease a sufferer and inspire other abortion activists to kill on behalf of unborn kids. He looked frontward to decease, where he said God would forgive him for the slayings and offer him a great wages. Hill ‘s action supported this desire: after the shot Hill sat down on a kerb and waited for the constabulary to get and one time charged, he made no effort to appeal the decease sentence. Hill told Jessica Stern merely months before his executing, “ I would be willing to decease to advance the truth. . . I ‘m non defying their attempts to kill me. . . The heightened menace, the more troubles forced on a Christian, the more joy I experience if I respond suitably ” ( Stern, 170 ) .[ 2 ]

The fact that a holy text contains divine bids to contemn or kill ‘the Other ‘ does non intend that the trusters in the holiness of the text must really be making so. The same Torah that contains the bids to butcher the idolatrous states populating the Land of Israel besides contains the commandment ‘Thou shalt non oppress a alien: for ye know the bosom of a alien, seeing ye were aliens in the land of Egypt ‘ ( Exodus 23:9 ) . The same Gospel of Matthew that declares ‘His blood be on us, and on our kids ‘ ( 27:25 ) besides declares ‘Love your enemies, bless them that expletive you ‘ ( 5:44 ) . Similarly, the same Quran that states ‘slay the idolizers wherever you find them ‘ ( 9:5 ) besides states ‘Let there be no irresistible impulse in faith ‘ ( 2:256 ) .

One can ever happen biblical poetries to legalize both the slaughter and the credence of the Other. It is true that in every faith we can see the conflict of reading. One ground that faiths may hold played a powerful function in history is that they frequently carry the symbols, narratives, and worldviews through which people shape their individuality, designate or delegate their deepest inquiries of significance, trade with jobs of unfairness and agony, and develop codifications of morality and behavior to run into the demands of community life. Nevertheless people are frequently prepared to decease in order to support or continue these symbols, significances, and individuality systems ( Rapoport, 1984 ) .[ 3 ]

The intuition that faith is a cardinal beginning of terrorist act has been loosely examined since the 9/11 onslaughts. In fact, spiritual motivation has became an indispensable portion of specifying terrorist act in UK and other legal powers including Australia and New Zealand, but has been resisted in others including the United States, Indonesia, and many states in the Middle East, which define terrorist act chiefly by mention to the nature of the injury caused.

My article would exemplify the troubles in analyzing ‘secular ‘ and ‘religious ‘ motivations. First, I will utilize Rapoport ‘s positions on four moving ridges of terrorist act to supply the instance how faith is alleged to hold a nexus with terrorist act. Second, a brief overview of anti terrorist act jurisprudence passed in the station 9/11 reveals how faith becomes one of the motor elements in the definition of a terrorist act. I examine how the inclusion of motive in the definition promotes the feeling that the State is penalizing the faith of the accused as opposed to their holding committed or planned to perpetrate Acts of the Apostless of force. Third, the Khawaja instance in Canada, along with Indonesian instances, demonstrates how the Court is able to penalize the terrorists even without analyzing their spiritual motivation. Therefore, I would reason that the inclusion of spiritual motivation as an indispensable component of a terrorist activity might promote a procedure of spiritual profiling in which research workers paid undue attending to the faith of suspects or accused individuals. I would reason that this non merely set faith on tests, but it besides diminishes the effectivity and value of the terrorist act Torahs and, furthermore, it encourages favoritism.

The Four Waves

Harmonizing to David Rapoport, we have had four moving ridges of terrorist act since modern panic began in the 1870s.[ 4 ]The Anarchist moving ridge lasted some 40 old ages. The Anti-Colonial moving ridge began in the 1920s and ended in the early 1962, enduring as its predecessor did for 40 old ages. The 3rd or New Left wave began in the sixtiess, reached its high point in the 1980s and is fundamentally over, though a few organisations still survive in the twenty-first century, i.e. in Palestine, Spain, Peru, Columbia and Nepal. Now we are in the 4th or Religious moving ridge. Rapoport dates the 4th moving ridge from three about coincident events: the Persian Islamic Revolution in 1979, the start of the 15th century in the Islamic hijri calendar, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan-when the force truly started.

Each moving ridge produced its ain signature tactics. First wave terrorists assassinated the most outstanding political figures in authorities. The 2nd moving ridge rejected blackwash and organized a more complicated project. The 3rd moving ridge introduced air hose highjacking and surety taking on a expansive graduated table. The current or 4th moving ridge rejected the 3rd moving ridge ‘s disposition to kill from a distance and introduced self-martyrdom or self-destruction bombardment assaults.

Rapoport ‘s position is unfastened for treatment. For case, are the terrorist moving ridges historically alone to each period? Do n’t we see some similarities between the anarchist terrorist act ( first moving ridge ) and today ‘s terrorist act? We may besides inquire: Is it true that merely spiritual groups use suicide onslaughts? How do we explicate state of affairs in Iraq? Should we see it as the 4th moving ridge ( spiritual moving ridge ) or anti-colonial moving ridge?

Ferguson ( 2001 ) compares between Osama bin Laden and late 19th-century Russian terrorists, and makes a note of similarities in the political faith of their political orientations ; the multinational nature of both sets of terrorists, as they frequently resided and planned onslaughts abroad, along with the similarity of planetary political economic conditions at the terminal of the 19th and twentieth centuries. Ferguson has besides compared the motivations of the 1880s Sudanese rebellion against the British Empire with Osama ‘s run against the US.[ 5 ]Another bookman, Schweitzer ( 2002 ) is of the position that while 19th-century anarchist blackwashs were frequently done by persons, the Acts of the Apostless were portion of a larger modern-day motion of which the general populace was fearful ; it was much like contemporary reactions to terrorist act.[ 6 ]Kennedy ( 2001 ) notes a similarity between the hate of London as the fiscal centre of universe capitalist economy at the terminal of the nineteenth century and the hatred by ‘fanatical Muslims today ‘ of the laterality of Wall Street and the Pentagon.[ 7 ]Finally, Bergesen and Yi Han ( 2005 ) observe that if Al Qaeda is a reaction to American imperium, so one could see analogues in pre-1914 terrorist groups assailing the imperiums of their twenty-four hours ( the Serbian Black Hand versus the Austrian Empire ; the Inner Macedonian Revolutionary Organization versus the Ottoman Empire, and the terrorists of Narodnaya Volya versus the Tsarist Russian Empire ) .[ 8 ]

The point is that sometimes it is true that history repetitions itself. Although we can see some alone features of each moving ridge, we can besides see some similarities. It seems that Rapoport ‘s tend to do a duality between secular motivation and spiritual motivation. If this is the instance, allow us see some interesting informations here. In his book Diing to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, Robert Pape shows that most existent terrorist incidents are non-religious. It is based on a database he has compiled at the University of Chicago, where he directs the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism. The book ‘s decisions are based on informations from 315 suicide terrorist act runs around the universe from 1980 through 2003 and 462 single self-destruction terrorists. Some of his findings include: the taking provokers of self-destruction onslaughts are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-leninist group whose members are from Hindu households, but who are adamantly opposed to religion. 95 % of the onslaught could hold their roots traced to big, consistent political or military runs. 57 % of the onslaughts were secular and 43 % were spiritual[ 9 ]

Despite a different positions discussed above, Rapoport ‘s position clearly highlights the thought of spiritual terrorist act as the current moving ridge. This brings us to Juergensmeyer ‘s book, Terror in the Mind of God. He examines the instances of a figure of people who engage in, or someway support, the usage of force for spiritual terminals in different spiritual traditions. So fundamentally he asks some hard inquiries here: Since faith was found in bed with terrorist act, is this the mistake of faith? Has its mask been ripped away and its cloudy side exposed-or has its artlessness been abused? Is faith the job or the victim?

Harmonizing to Ranstorp ( 1996 ) , despite holding immensely different beginnings, philosophies, establishments, and patterns, these spiritual extremists are unified in their justification for using sacred force either in attempts to support, widen or avenge their ain communities or for chiliastic or messianic grounds.[ 10 ]

This leads us to see the motivation behind such panic. The secular-religious duality is frequently used to do differentiations between “ fiends ” and “ pragmatics ” as if secular motivations for slaying big Numberss of guiltless civilians are someway more rational than spiritual 1s. The logical thinking follows that one can negociate with matter-of-fact terrorists, but spiritual 1s are so irrational that there is no possibility of via media or dialogue. Peoples are concerned that spiritual terrorist onslaughts are likely to be more lifelessly as they are less motivated by a desire to win-over the people. This is owing to the fact that spiritual terrorist differ from their secular opposite numbers in motive Bruce Hoffman writes that ‘whereas secular terrorists attempt to appeal to existent and possible sympathisers, spiritual terrorists appeal to no other constituency than themselves ‘ .[ 11 ]For Audrey Cronin, spiritual terrorists act ‘directly or indirectly to delight the sensed bids of a divinity ‘ .[ 12 ]This is why, for Hoffman and Cronin, spiritual terrorist act is unambiguously destructive and unambiguously unsafe.

Such bookmans dismiss any strategic motive for terrorist tactics, and instead they assert that spiritual terrorist act is caused by ideological compulsion and fanaticism.. However, is it true that spiritual terrorist act is based on irrational determinations, no strategic motive, and conducted by defeated people?

One bookman has one possible reply: “ I collected informations on more than 130 members of the Global Salafi Jihad. . . In footings of socio-economic position, two tierces came from solid upper or in-between category backgrounds. . .A They came from caring integral households. . . As a group, the terrorists were comparatively good educated with over 60 % holding some college instruction. . . Most had good occupational preparation and merely a one-fourth were considered unskilled with few chances before them. Three quarters were married and the bulk had kids. I detected no mental unwellness in this group or any common psychological sensitivity for panic. ” Marc Sageman, Understanding Terror Networks, University of Pennsylvania Press ( April, 2004 )

Therefore, the positions that unreason or mental unwellness is the chief beginnings of spiritual terrorist act are questionable. I think we should seek to see this chief issue from terrorist point of position: they see their actions as sensible, and a deliberate response to fortunes they face. What is perceived by foreigners as failure may non be perceived as such by terrorists groups ; alternatively it may function as a farther justification of their tactics. For case, in the three states Stern visits, Islamist groups have different positions on what constitutes success. Most are focused on their local or regional struggle ; Pakistani Jihadist groups want to evict India from Kashmir ; Hamas wants to force Israel out of the occupied districts ; the Indonesian group, Laskar Jihad, began as a local paramilitary group designed to salvage Muslims from Christian persecution ( Stern, 2003 ) . Although faith might animate their force Acts of the Apostless, they besides have other motivations or ends which could be considered as ‘secular ‘ .

In this context, Assaf Moghadam argues that Middle East bombers are driven by a combination of motives that vary from individual to individual. He categorizes suicide bombers ‘ motives as spiritual, personal, nationalist, economic, or sociological. Harmonizing to Moghadam, personal motivations are likely the biggest drive force ; they include a wages in the hereafter ; elevated position of the bomber in society ; retaliation for the deceases of a friend or household member ; religious benefits to the bomber ‘s household ; and a Restoration of self-respect from the humiliation felt in Palestine.[ 13 ]

Adam Dolnik and Keith M. Fitzgerald ( 2008 ) point out that even Aum Shinrikyo ‘s exclusive hostage-taking incident ( 1995 highjacking of Nippon Airways flight 857 ) was motivated by a rational demand for the release of the cult ‘s guru from prison. This Aum ‘s political orientation was based on a ‘cosmically scientific ‘ mix of prophetic cultic patterns that was hard for most people to grok.[ 14 ]They explain more:

aˆ¦the “ new terrorists ” in general are efficaciously really similar to their secular opposite numbers: they are persons who fail to see alternate positions on the issues for which they are contending, and who empathize with-or effort to embody-the victimization of their ain people, while exerting minimum empathy for their victims… It is still the perceptual experience of humiliation, victimization, and unfairness that drives the alleged “ spiritual terrorist, ” instead than a sensed bid from God. The usage of holy rhetoric by most groups normally labelled “ spiritual ” serves much more as a uniting and morale-boosting tool than as a justification for Acts of the Apostless of unrestrained force. ( Dolnik and Fitzgerald, 2008, 139 )

I would reason that we need to reconsider whether the current moving ridge is spiritual terrorist act as it is hard to find a individual motivation or end of such force. What we see as spiritual terrorist act might non be alone in history and the nexus between socio-political and economic structural factors, such as poorness, deficiency of economic chance, foreign business, and terrorist act should be taken into history. As I would discourse below, the troubles to analyze motivations of spiritual terrorist act have influenced the argument on the definition of terrorist act itself.

Anti-Terrorism Law

Different states, with differing political and legal traditions and systems, recognizing the peculiar menace posed by terrorist act, have enacted a assortment of steps to counter that menace.

Before 2002 terrorist Acts of the Apostless in Australia would hold been prosecuted as offenses such as slaying, imposition of serious hurt, assault, incendiarism, ownership of explosives, offenses against aircraft or ships and so on. This place was radically changed by the Security Legislation Amendment ( Terrorism Act 2002 ) , which introduced a definition of terrorist act into Australian jurisprudence and created a figure of offenses based on that definition ( Divisions 101 and 103 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code ) . At the Commonwealth degree at that place have been more than 30 pieces of “ anti panic ” statute law introduced since 2001. Each State and Territory has introduced statute law to complement that of the Commonwealth. By manner of illustration, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment ( Terrorism ) Act 2003 introduced a government whereby “ oppugning warrants ” allowed for the detainment and inquiring of persons. This statute law was replaced by the ASIO Legislation Amendment Act 2006, which consists of more extended powers, including the detainment of an person for the intent of oppugning for yearss continuously on any one juncture. Multiple warrants may be sought. Preventive detainment was enacted in December 2005 by the Anti-Terrorism Act ( no 2 ) 2005 ( Cth ) which inserted Division 105 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth ) leting, amongst other things, for the detainment of an person for up to 48 hours to forestall an at hand terrorist act happening or to continue grounds.[ 15 ]

In the U.S. , on 25 October, 2001, the Congress passed the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. The Act prescribes up to 10 old ages of imprisonment to “ whoever seaports or hide any individual who he knows, or has sensible evidences to believe, has committed, or is about to perpetrate ” , offenses associated with terrorist act. Legislative counter-measures were reinforced by declaring ‘war against panic ‘ since “ after the pandemonium and the slaughter of September the 11th, it [ was ] non plenty to function [ their ] enemies with legal documents. ” ( Bush: 2004 )[ 16 ]

Indonesia enacted a new anti-terrorism jurisprudence in 2002. The Act arguably confers inordinate powers to research workers, public prosecuting officers and Judgess. A suspect can be detained for up to seven yearss during probes based on preliminary grounds ( Article 28 ) . If convicted, a individual is apt to a period of imprisonment of up to 15 old ages, or an award of the decease punishment. However, political offenses are excluded from the expanse of terrorist Acts of the Apostless ( Article 5 ) . Singapore and Malaysia have used Internal Security Act, while the Philippines, President Arroyo approved the Human Security Act of 2007.


While authoritiess around the Earth agree that terrorist act is a menace, there is a deficiency of global understanding on what terrorist act is. The broad definition of ‘terrorism ‘ used in the station 9/11 statute law onslaught generates important jobs, as it potentially encompasses a really wide scope of activity and activism.

Ben Saul, in his book Specifying Terrorism in International Law ( 2006 ) , proposes the undermentioned definition, which, he argues, would reflect bing understanding on the wrongfulness of terrorist act: ‘ ( 1 ) Any serious, violent, condemnable act intended to do decease or serious bodily hurt, or to jeopardize life, including by Acts of the Apostless against belongings ; ( 2 ) where committed outside an armed struggle ; ( 3 ) for a political, ideological, spiritual, or cultural intent ; and ( 4 ) where intended to make utmost fright in a individual, group, or the general populace, and: ( a ) earnestly intimidate a population or portion of a population, or ( B ) unduly oblige a authorities or an international organisation to make or to abstain from making any act ‘ . Furthermore, he suggests an expressed exclusion for Acts of the Apostless of protagonism, protest, dissent or industrial action that are non intended to do decease, serious bodily injury or serious hazard to public wellness or safety.[ 17 ]

Other definition normally includes: ‘the usage or menace of action ‘ where it endangers life, or poses a serious hazard to wellness or to belongings, and is ‘designed to act upon the authorities or to intimidate the populace or a subdivision of the populace ‘ , and where ‘the usage or menace is made for the intent of progressing a political, spiritual or ideological cause ‘ ( Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in the United Kingdom ) . And yet, on each of these counts, the effort to specify terrorist act is fraught with troubles in in separating terrorist act from what it is non such as legitimate province responses or counter-terrorism, national release struggles or freedom combatant, and ordinary condemnable offenses.

Laura Donohue, for case, observes that counter-terrorism does portion so many qualities with terrorist act. She explains:

The definition, marks, and extra features of terrorist act and counterterrorism are closely connected. In each of the five parts – the US, UK, Ireland, Israel and Turkey – there is a close relationship between the types of actions taken by province and non-state histrions. Both integrated force, fright and a broader audience. They are purposive, political and ( although denied in each instance by the histrion ) affect non-combatants. And they are instrumental. Their marks range from the immediate and symbolic to a broader audience and demands. In add-on, such actions are affectional and carry strong moral and spiritual overtones. While non all counter-terrorism involves force, neither does all terrorist act ( Donohue, 2005: 35 )[ 18 ]

With respect to freedom combatants, one merely needs to offer the illustrations of Yasser Arafat and Nelson Mandela. Nobel Prize victor Yasser Arafat has been charged in the inhuman blackwash of U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel in the Sudan in 1973. His PLO ( Palestine Liberation Organization ) is an umbrella group encompassing organisations for whom the arm of pick in the war against Israel is panic. Nelson Mandela, another Nobel Peace Prize victor, did non acquire life imprisonment on Robben Island for sitting in at tiffin counters, but if memory serves, for plotting panic to subvert the government. Is it so true that ‘one adult male ‘s terrorist is another adult male ‘s freedom combatant ‘ ?

It is deserving observing that half of all terrorist organisations have such ‘liberation ‘ purposes. They wish to do an independent province for minority ( The Basque Fatherland and Liberty group, IRA, Kurdistan Worker ‘s Party ) , independent Islamic province ( Abu Sayyaf Group, Moro Islamic Liberation Front ) , or independent province of working category ( Revolutionary People ‘s Liberation Party/Front ) . Put it merely, they struggle for the state ‘s release. Are they terrorists or freedom combatants?

Another issue is how can we separate between a terrorist act and an ordinary offense? Harmonizing to Victor Ramraj,[ 19 ]to the extent that anti-terrorism offenses are incorporated into the condemnable jurisprudence system, substantial and procedural condemnable jurisprudence concerns originate. Substantively, these concerns relate, for illustration, to the ways in which anti-terrorism Torahs depart from traditional condemnable jurisprudence norms. They might make so by, for case, loosen uping the mental component required for a strong belief or by spread outing condemnable liability to those who facilitate Acts of the Apostless of terrorist act or even to third parties with no direct cognition of the activity in inquiry ( by making secondary offenses associating to, state, the failure to supervise or describe fiscal or belongings minutess ) . This inclination to contend terrorist act by criminalizing behavior that might otherwise be harmless ( say, leting a client to open a bank history without roll uping elaborate personal information ) gives rise to concerns about privateness and overcriminalisation.

Most Acts of the Apostless of terrorist act could be regarded as peculiarly flagitious offenses and prosecuted consequently, yet there is a sensed demand to handle terrorist act as a sui generis offense. The enticement might be to separate terrorist act from ordinary condemnable offenses by mention to the political, spiritual, or ideological motivation with which the act is committed.

Two possible scenarios below might explicate the trouble to pull a clear line between a terrorist act and a offense?

Rambo with M16 in his custodies came to the category, and said clearly “ Allahu Akbar ” before hiting everyone in the schoolroom.

Rocky with M16 in his custodies came to the category, and said clearly “ Jennie, I love you ” before hiting everyone, including Jennie, in the schoolroom.

The Acts of the Apostless of Rambo and Rocky are the same, but the motivation might be different. So, which one is a terrorist and which 1 is a mass liquidator? This illustration leads us to analyze the jobs with motor elements ( mention to a political, spiritual or ideological intent ) in the definition of terrorist act. On one manus, the acceptance of motor elements assists us to distinguish terrorist act from other sorts of serious force which may besides bring forth fright such as common assault, armed robbery, colza, or slaying. On the other manus, such inclusion might promote a procedure of spiritual profiling in which research workers and others paid undue attending to the political relations or faith of suspects or accused individuals. This could be seen as non merely a going from ordinary condemnable jurisprudence rules, but is besides a prosecutorial and political minefield. Giving motor ( instead than the purpose ) primary legal significance leaves prosecuting officers and authoritiess vulnerable to charges of profiling and favoritism against spiritual groups or unpopular political groups, farther politicising anti-terrorism prosecutions.

It is deserving observing that the ordinary condemnable jurisprudence functioned under the traditional rule that motivation was non relevant to a offense and that a political or spiritual motivation could non pardon the committee of the offense. In contrast, the Anti-terrorism act in Australia requires proof that terrorist offenses are committed for spiritual or political motivations. In February 2006, the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions ( CDPP ) and the Attorney-General ‘s Department have argued that this motive component should be removed from the definition of ‘terrorist act ‘ on the evidences that the definition is excessively complicated and that motivation should non be relevant to condemnable blameworthiness. The CDPP entry states that “ it is non in the public involvement for a individual to avoid condemnable liability by demoing that their Acts of the Apostless were motivated by something other than political relations, faith or political orientation ” .[ 20 ]

Professor Kent Roach of McGill University portions the positions that the demand of turn outing a political, spiritual or ideological motivation as a menace to broad rules:

“ It means that constabulary and prosecuting officers will be derelict in their responsibilities if they do non roll up grounds about a terrorist suspect ‘s faith or political relations. In my position, this presents a menace to broad rules that democracies do non by and large inquire into why a individual committed a offense, but merely whether he or she acted deliberately or without some other signifier of blameworthiness. It besides may hold a chilling consequence on those whose political or spiritual positions are outside the mainstream and possibly similar to those held by terrorists. Probes into political and spiritual motivations can suppress dissent in a democracy. ” ( Kent Roach, 2004 )[ 21 ]

Similarly, Canada ‘s O’Connor J in the first Arar Report noted that “ anti-terrorism probes at present focal point mostly on members of the Muslim and Arab communities ” taking to an “ increased hazard of racial [ or ] spiritual profiling ” .[ 22 ]On the other manus, while he acknowledges that motivation is non traditionally relevant to condemnable duty, Ben Saul presents a instance for why motor should be included as an component of definition of ‘terrorist act ‘ :

“ In a sophisticated condemnable justness system an component of motivation can advance a more finely graduated legal response to specific types of socially unacceptable behavior. Where society decides that certain societal, ethical, or political values are deserving protecting, the demand of a motor component can more accurately aim condemnable violations of those values. There may be a powerful symbolic or moral value in reprobating the motive behind an act, rather individually from reprobating the knowing physical act itself. ” ( Saul: 41 )[ 23 ]

In this sense, Alan Norrie has argued that disregarding the relevancy of motor efficaciously ignores the societal conditions in which persons live. Norrie points out that the rule that motivation is irrelevant to the inquiry of condemnable duty originated in a system where regulations associating to belongings were imposed on all, despite the hapless ‘s motivations of ‘desperate societal demand and incensed claim of right ‘ .[ 24 ]By disregarding the societal conditions that led to offense, delegating condemnable duty could be simplified.

Harmonizing to Williams, Lynch and MacDonald ( 2006 ) , the inclusion of the motivation of progressing a political, spiritual or ideological cause is necessary as it is one of terrorist act ‘s distinguishing characteristics. It is the purpose of ‘advancing a political, spiritual or ideological cause ‘ that distinguishes terrorist Acts of the Apostless from other signifiers of condemnable behavior. such as armed robbery, consecutive colza and mass slaying, from terrorist act.[ 25 ]Such positions have been supported by HREOC on the evidences that taking the motor elements would widen the comprehensiveness of the definition to the extent that the terrorist act offenses could be a disproportional restriction on the rights to freedom of look and association guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR ) .[ 26 ]

By contrast, Justice Robert McDougall of NSW Supreme Court[ 27 ]offers his positions that if the prosecution is able to set up that an act is undertaken with the purpose of coercing, or act uponing by bullying, the authorities or intimidating the populace or a subdivision of the populace, so the motivation for the act should be irrelevant. That which is considered conceptually and morally typical about terrorist act – that it aims to interrupt and hale peaceable political procedure and interrupt society through force – should organize the focal point of the jurisprudence, non the underlying motivation of the culprit.

Justice McDougall besides explained that

In R V Mallah[ 28 ]there was grounds that the accused was motivated by a spiritual or ideological cause. However, there was besides grounds that he may hold been motivated by a desire for retaliation or because of a grudge against a Government bureau. Subsequently the accused was acquitted of two counts of fixing for or be aftering a terrorist act. Thus it seems that tactically, it may be easier for the Office of Public Prosecutions to bear down persons with preexistent offenses instead than do usage of the terrorist act statute law.

He so concluded that the inclusion of the motor component in the definition diminishes the effectivity and value of the terrorist act Torahs.

Another concern is that if we still accept the motor elements, peculiarly spiritual one, the motor demand could besides supply an accused with a possible platform to politicize the test procedure by offering extended grounds about the true significance of frequently equivocal spiritual beliefs. The conflict of reading within faith will take topographic point in the tribunal. Make the Courts have the capacity and ability to analyze the spiritual text and literature?

Once once more this argument illustrates the troubles we have in non merely analyzing whether secular terrorist and spiritual terrorist have different motivations but besides whether we should set the motor elements as an indispensable portion in specifying the terrorist act. Further, what will be considered a political, spiritual or ideological cause may alter over clip.

If we accept motor elements, peculiarly spiritual motivations, how do we explicate the recent findings that from 2004 to 2008 merely 15 % per centum of the 3,010 victims were Western? During the most recent period studied the Numberss skew even further. From 2006 to 2008, merely 2 % ( 12 of 661 victims ) are from the West, and the staying 98 % are dwellers of states with Muslim bulks. During this period, a individual of non-Western beginning was 54 times more likely to decease in an al-Qa’ida onslaught than an person from the West. The overpowering bulk of al-Qa’ida victims are Muslims populating in Muslim states, and many are citizens of Iraq, which suffered more al-Qa’ida onslaughts than any other state courtesy of the al-Qaeda in Iraq ( AQI ) affiliate. The figures, drawn from entirely Arabic intelligence beginnings, show that the Muslims they claim to protect are much more likely to be the marks of al-Qa’ida force than the Western powers they claim to contend.[ 29 ]

At international degree, there is no consensus as to whether motivation should be included within the definition of ‘terrorist act ‘ . Anti-terrorism statute law in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and South Africa all require the prosecution to set up a political, spiritual or ideological motivation. South Africa besides includes philosophical motivations. Conversely, the United States and the bill of exchange UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism do non necessitate such a motivation ( Golder and Williams, 2004 ) .[ 30 ]

Simon Butt ( 2009 ) explains that in Indonesia the Anti Terrorism Law does non specify terrorist act per Se. Rather, Article 1 ( 1 ) merely states that: “ The offense of terrorist act is any act that fulfils the elements of a offense under this Interim Law ” . These elements are set out in Articles 6. Article 6 provides a generally-worded description of terrorist act: “ any individual who by deliberately utilizing force or menaces of force, creates a widespread ambiance of terror/fear or causes mass casualties, by taking the autonomy or lives and belongings of other people, or doing harm or devastation to strategic critical objects, the environment, public installations or international installations, faces the decease punishment, or life imprisonment, or between 4 and 20 old ages ‘ imprisonment. ”[ 31 ]

As can be seen, motor elements are excluded. However, Indonesian tribunal has punished many terrorists such as the three Bali bombers. Two hundred and two people, including 88 Australians, 38 Indonesians and 24 Britishers, died in the three detonations in the resort town of Kuta six old ages ago this month. They were carried out by an Indonesian cell of a south-east Asiatic activist group known as Jemaah Islamiyah. Amrozi, Ali Gufron and Imam Samudra were executed in 2008 after an Indonesian tribunal rejected their entreaty.

Whatever their motivation is, terrorist is terrorist. Another illustration comes from Khawaja instance in Canada. Mohammad Momin Khawaja was the first adult male charged under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act. He was arrested March 29, 2004, accused of take parting in the activities of a terrorist group, and easing a terrorist activity. The officers raided Khawaja ‘s house in Orleans, a suburb of Ottawa, and his workplace. The foray was portion of an probe affecting Canada and Britain in which nine work forces of Pakistani heritage were arrested. Khawaja was the lone individual arrested in Canada.

The charges allege that terrorist activities took topographic point in London, England, and Ottawa between November 2003 and March 29, 2004. Khawaja had made trips to London but his brother said it was to happen a married woman. Khawaja had been working on contract as a computing machine package operator for the Foreign Affairs Department, but governments said he had no entree to classified paperss.

On Oct. 24, 2006, an Ontario Superior Court justice opinion on Khawaja ‘s instance struck down the motor clause of the Anti-Terrorism Act, stating it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This clause defines a terrorist act as one committed “ for a political, spiritual or ideological intent, nonsubjective or cause. ” He held that the political or spiritual motor demand was an undue misdemeanor of cardinal freedoms and should be severed from the other parts of the definition of terrorist activities.[ 32 ]

In the terminal, Justice Rutherford concluded “ that the focal point on the indispensable ingredient of political, spiritual or ideological motivation will chill freedom protected address, faith, thought, belief, look and association, and hence, democratic life ; and will advance fright and intuition of targeted political or spiritual groups, and will ensue in racial or cultural profiling by governmental governments at many degrees. ” As Roach points out, “ the remotion of the political and spiritual motor demand is, of class, no warrant that profiling or unfairness will non happen, but it is a measure in the right way ” ( Roach, 2007 ) .[ 33 ]

Although the justice struck down this portion of the jurisprudence, he said Khawaja ‘s test on the charges could travel on. On Oct. 29, 2008, Khawaja was found guilty of five charges of funding and easing terrorist act and two Criminal Code offenses related to constructing a remote-control device that could trip bombs. Five months subsequently, Judge Douglas Rutherford of the Ontario Superior Court sentenced Khawaja to ten and half old ages jail, naming him ‘a willing and eager participant ‘ in a terrorist strategy.

The Khawaja Case suggests that even without motor elements, Mr Khawaja can be convicted under anti-terrorism jurisprudence. Canadian and Indonesian instances demonstrate that tribunals should be able to convict people of terrorist act even when there is no spiritual motor demand for the offense.


The inclusion of spiritual motivation opens the possibility that people who might portion spiritual band could non assist but fall under some kind of shadow which might take to racial or cultural profiling and bias in and beyond the fact-finding and prosecutorial procedure. The inevitable impact of the motivation clause is to concentrate fact-finding and prosecutorial examination on the beliefs, sentiments, and looks of a big figure of people, bring forthing an every bit inevitable chilling consequence on the exercising of freedoms of faith, look, sentiment, and association.

Harmonizing to Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, the more unafraid people become in the developed universe, the more they loosen their clasp on faith. Religion, meanwhile, retains its authorization among the less unafraid but faster-growing populations of the less developed universe. They conclude that rich societies are going more secular but the universe as a whole is going more spiritual. However Norris and Inglehart besides conclude that the United States remains one of the most spiritual in the nine of rich states, aboard Ireland and Italy, and so this makes America one of the most spiritual states in the universe. America is ever a particular instance.[ 34 ]

In the context of America, Bruce Ledewitz, argued that we are populating in a spiritual democracy and he explores the deductions of take parting in this new signifier of American authorities. He has coined the new term “ American Religious Democracy ” . His book, American Religious Democracy: Coming to Footings with the End of Secular Politicss ( 2007 ) , explains the diminution of secular democracy, describes some of the legal, political and spiritual deductions of this new spiritual democracy and, eventually, invites secular electors to take part in spiritual democracy. Harmonizing to Ledewitz, the 2004 Bush re-election clearly showed that a significant figure of electors in America now vote the manner they do for what they consider to be spiritual grounds and that, as a consequence of their vote, authorities policy is altering to reflect their spiritual committednesss. The consequence has been the creative activity of a spiritual democracy.[ 35 ]

In the context of Australia, Dr Marion Maddox ( 2005 ) published her books, God Under Howard: the Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics. She parallels the beliefs of the spiritual right in US political relations with those of the conservative Liberal Party authorities lead by John Howard in Australia. Despite her unfavorable judgments, Maddox ‘s plants show us that in Australia faith can play a important function in the public life.[ 36 ]

To sum up, by taking faith as the current moving ridge of terrorist act, some bookmans tend to accept the motor elements as an indispensable portion of the definition of terrorist activities. This leads those bookmans to analyze the motivation of spiritual terrorist act itself as compared to secular motivation. At the same clip, the universe as a whole is going more spiritual and the rejection of the thesis of secularization ( as has been discussed in other Chapters of the book ) is increasing. Then, one may set a rhetoric inquiry: which faith we put presently under the terrorist tests and which faith that we believe can play a important function in our democratic secular systems? Possibly the replies to the inquiries illustrate the paradox of religion-security and secularism-democracy.


I'm Heather

Would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out