Abstract

This article examines how post-9/11 counterterrorism has often not been applied to far-right terrorism. Discriminatory double standards in counterterrorism should not be tolerated. Nevertheless, the answer is not simply to ratchet up counterterrorism to apply to the far-right. The legitimate desire for symbolic equality should not blind us to the underlying weaknesses of many of those instruments both in preventing terrorism and in respecting rights. In some cases, such as the United Nation’s regime of individual sanctions related to financing and travel of those associated with al Qaeda and Daesh, application to the far-right is not legally possible. It will be suggested in this article that far-right terrorism should be used as an opportunity to re-evaluate the effectiveness and propriety of all counterterrorism. A preliminary assessment suggests that counterterrorism tied to international or national proscription may not be effective (both generally and specifically in relation to the far-right). More difficult cases involve whether terrorism offences and offences targeting speech should be applied against all forms of terrorism. Interventions regulating items and material on the Internet used by terrorists and programs to counter violent extremism and to rehabilitate offenders may be promising in addressing both far-right and Daesh-inspired terrorism. Both New Zealand’s increased regulation of guns and the Christchurch calls for greater regulation of the Internet follow these more promising strategies.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call