Suicide Terrorism and Freedom of

Expression, yet to be fully analyzed

January 14, 2015

Christophe Boisseau (R), brother of Frederic Boisseau, a Sodexo employee who was
killed during the attack on the offices of French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo on
January 7, embraces Jeremy Ganz (L), who was with Frederic Boisseau on the day of
the shooting, during a press conference in Boulogne-Billancourt, west of Paris, on
January 13, 2015. Frederic Boisseau, a 42-year-old father of two was in the lobby of the
newspaper to perform building maintenance work when he was killed by the attackers
on January 7.AFP
It is very likely that the Mumbai attacks were undertaken by martyrs in
the sense just defined. That is, happy and even euphoric killers who were
motivated by the belief that they were serving a cause which, from their
viewpoint, was worthy. Accordingly, they fought to a finish and they
launched their attacks with the full awareness that they were not going to
come out of the mayhem they triggered, alive. As is known, all the Mumbai
killers, except one, were killed in their terror splurge.
The terror attacks recently in Paris which claimed
17 lives may have brought back unsettling and sad
memories to many, of the extremist attacks in
Mumbai in late 2008, which cruelly snuffed out over
150 lives. Hopefully, some elements of the Mumbai
style may have been noticed in the Paris outrage
as well by observers.

Are Suicide Terrorists, in fact, suicidal? This is a question which is

provoking a degree of analytical thinking among some international
experts on terror but it is not clear whether the issue is being addressed in
depth by Sri Lankan experts and students of this species of political
violence. However, recent research abroad reveals that Suicide Terrorists
are not necessarily suicidal. Not if they are spurred by the belief, for
example, that they are being martyrs to a cause. Because martyrdom
involves the taking of ones life willingly and even happily in the hope of
gaining some perceived benefits for oneself in what is considered the
afterlife. On the other hand, in the case of the majority of conventional
suicides, a person takes his life out of a sense of desperation, usually in a
state of depression.
It is very likely that the Mumbai attacks were undertaken by martyrs in
the sense just defined. That is, happy and even euphoric killers who were
motivated by the belief that they were serving a cause which, from their
viewpoint, was worthy. Accordingly, they fought to a finish and they
launched their attacks with the full awareness that they were not going to
come out of the mayhem they triggered, alive. As is known, all the Mumbai
killers, except one, were killed in their terror splurge.
The attackers of the office of the Paris-based satirical weekly journal
Charlie Hebdo seemed to have been in the same mindset as the Mumbai
terrorists. They apparently chose to fight to a finish and were quite willing
to place their lives on the firing line. May be they had even predetermined
not to come out of their orgy of violence alive and done so very happily.
While the above and many more issues in terrorism need to be further
investigated by the global community of experts in terror, there is no
denying that there could be a phenomenal number of persons, in
particularly the conflict zones of the world, who are increasingly
predisposed by the circumstances they are in, to engage in terror. The
pervasive violence in these zones, we now know, traumatizes humans to a
notable degree and this factor plays a central role in driving persons to
take to a life of violence. This is on account of the fact that, violence, while
traumatizing the individuals concerned and making them terror-prone,
desentisizes them to a great degree, rendering them able and willing to
take their lives and those of others.
Accordingly, while not all Suicide Terrorists are suicides in the
conventional sense, in that they are not desperate to take their lives out of
a sense of overwhelming hopelessness, the violence pervading their lives
could make them receptive to what is termed as the Jihadist cause. The

perceived possibility of their achieving some measure of glory in the

afterlife makes the persons concerned to engage with exceptional zest in
terror. The latter factor, adds to the complexity of the problem of terror.
Hopefully, world leaders who gathered in Paris this week to demonstrate
their concern for the victims of the terror attack in the French capital and
to register their opposition to terrorism, took cognizance of these and
many more questions. No human is born with a killer instinct. While the
Adlerian premise is that the Will to Power is intrinsic to humanness, it does
not necessarily follow that criminality is inborn in humans. The latter drive
is induced in humans by the social and political environment into which
they are born. If this environment is characterized by violence and bloody
strife, the individual is bound to be aggressive in his conduct and violenceprone.
The West is currently in an effort to neutralize the ISIS threat by the use
of military means in the Middle East, but considering the foregoing, how
advisable is this course of action? Isnt NATO producing more and more
terrorists through its bombing campaign, than neutralizing any? Such
questions should engage the minds of all those who have an enduring
fancy for military means as ways of defusing terror, both in and outside
the West. The inordinate use of military measures only harms the minds of
people. This ought to be abundantly clear.
However, it is open to question whether the concept of Freedom of
Expression is also analyzed with any degree of comprehensiveness by the
local and international media and other concerned sections, now that the
terror attacks in Paris have brought the principle to the forefront of public
attention. Certainly, the world has to continue to cherish and hold the
Freedom of Expression and the connected Right to Information. Without
these principles, democracy will lack its essential meaning.
But the more enlightened sections of public opinion would like to see rights
being balanced by responsibilities and given equal emphasis in discourse.
The principle of the Freedom of Expression should not be allowed in any
quarter to degenerate into an abuse of the Freedom of Speech and of the
right to express opinions, in the media and outside. For instance, religious
sensitivities of people must be respected and upheld by the media. The
same applies to the character and reputation of persons and communities.
Do the media in Sri Lanka and outside, for instance, consistently uphold
these values? If not, they have failed as democratic institutions.
Lampooning and satirising politicians, public officials, institutions and other

sections that are expected to uphold the public interest are perfectly in
order if the named quarters have not measured up to the trust placed in
them by the people. That is, if they have failed to meet public
expectations. But such satirizing should not be calumniatory or be
personally abusive. This would amount to a clear abuse of media rights.
The international community needs to think long and deep on these
issues , make the correct policy inferences and scrupulously practise them.
Apparently, the democratic world is yet to think on these things.
Posted by Thavam