Naming without Blaming
| Date | 01 September 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410502300301 |
| Published date | 01 September 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Column |
NAMING WITHOUT BLAMING*
Recent terrorist attacks have increased the need for effective measures to prevent
the loss of lives of innocent civilian victims. At the same time, it is necessary to
prevent a dichotomy in Western societies, which can be the (unintentional) result of
anti-terrorism measures. When Roosevelt proclaimed his famous Four Freedoms
Speech in 1941, he displayed his profound insight not only by emphasising the
inextricable connection between the four freedoms. Roosevelt also mentioned in a
less quoted passage that the people of America expect a number of basic, simple,
things of their political and economic systems, among which are equality of
opportunity, and the preservation of civil liberties for all.
In the same spirit, Kofi Annan pointed at the interconnection between
development, security and human rights, stressing that collective security depends
on accepting that the threats in each region are equally urgent for all: enduring
security can only be achieved for all.
Human rights organisations seem to be fully aware of the need to combat
terrorism as a flagrant violation of international law and at the same time stress that
the need to respect human rights should not be seen as an obstacle to effective
policies.
1
As easily as this can be endorsed in theory, recent attempts to counter
terrorism show that it is not that simple in practice.
One of the problems we are faced in this context is the dilemma that there often
are clear indications that suspects of terrorists attacks are members of specific
minority and/or religious groups, and that thus responses to terrorism risk to affect
these groups disproportionally.
2
This dilemma is not restricted to counter-terrorism
policies, but is part of more present-day, and interrelated trends in many countries,
such as the transformation into a multicultural society. The impact of the latter
development has, in some countries, been ignored for too long. In a recent
publication on the backgrounds of the criminal behaviour and religious radicalisa-
tion of a part of the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands, Hans Werdmo
¨lder
describes how these problems were explicitly ignored by politicians, how researchers
felt reluctant to reveal crime statistics of minority groups, or put them in a
perspective that should distract attention from the ethnic aspects.
3
Their motives
were above suspicion: they were inspired by fear of increasing discrimination and
intolerance. Paradoxically, these approaches may have had the reverse effect: those
who were faced with the crimes and extremism of some minority group members,
interpreted the denial of the ethnic perspective they perceived as a denial of the
COLUMN
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 23/3, 325-327, 2005.
#Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Printed in the Netherlands. 325
* Jenny Goldschmidt is Professor in Human Rights Law at the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights
(SIM), Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
1
E.g. the Council of Europe’s Guidelines on Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism,
Strasbourg, 2002.
2
Edley, Jr., Christopher, ‘The New American Dilemma: Racial Profiling – Post9/11’, in: Leone,
Richard C. and Anrig, Jr., Greg, The War on Our Freedoms, Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism, Public
Affairs, New York, 2003, pp. 170-192.
3
Werdmo
¨lder, Hans, Marokkaanse lieverdjes, Crimineel en hinderlijk gedrag onder Marokkaanse jongeren
[Moroccan angels, criminal and obstructive behaviour of Moroccan youth], Uitgeverij Balans,
Amsterdam, 2005.
To continue reading
Request your trial