ISIS is the acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, one of the names for the transnational Salafi jihadist militant organisation originating in Syria around 2013 and responsible not just for attempting to establish a brutal Islamic caliphate in that region but for terrorist acts throughout the world. According to Brookings, Salafism is the idea that the most authentic and true Islam is found in the lived example of the early, righteous generations of Muslims, known as the Salaf, who were closest in both time and proximity to the Prophet Muhammad.
ISIS-Philippines, also known as ISIS–East Asia, is a branch of ISIS that is based primarily in the Philippines and aspires to expand ISIS’s self-proclaimed caliphate to Southeast Asia. The US State Department designated ISIS-Philippines a foreign terrorist organization in February 2018. Mindanao has long been a hotbed of Islamic extremism, with ISIS seemingly the currently preferred brand.
Ostensibly, these events are completely divorced from contemporary New Zealand … except that the even more deadly event which occurred here so very recently was also directed at gatherings of a particular but different religion.
“Individual radicalisation is a complex and bespoke process influenced by multiple factors and variables, meaning every individual follows their own path to terrorism and political violence,” commences a paper “endeavour[ing] to demonstrate and explore some of the constitutive factors and processes in Brenton Tarrant’s path to radicalisation prior to his infamous Christchurch Mosque shooting in which 51 people lost their lives.”
This paper, from The Handa Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, within the School of International Relations at the Scottish University of St. Andrews, concludes that “despite being a lone actor in his attack, Tarrant was not radicalised in a vacuum; the internet allowed him to form social network ties and thus he was subject to group dynamics,” and “Tarrant’s decision to act was on the basis that he identified with a group which he perceived to be under threat. Tarrant thought he was one of the enlightened few and it was his responsibility to act to inspire others to do so too, like Breivik [the man who perpetrated the 2011 Norway attacks] had done for him.”
The paper’s thrust is that while “every individual follows their own path to terrorism and political violence,” the processes by which Tarrant, a lone actor, came to political violence share commonality with perpetrators’ more usual involvement with a group such as ISIS. The “group dynamics” factor was present.
During its analysis, the paper instances research suggesting that “the move from radical thought to action occurs through a dual-pyramid mode in which individuals with an unusually strong capacity to feel others’ sufferings experience an emotional reaction that converts the political into a personal moral obligation.” The dual pyramids are the “opinion radicalisation pyramid” and the “action radicalisation pyramid.”
In Tarrant’s case, available material (especially what he had written himself) suggested he was obsessed with the idea “whereby punishing ‘bad’ people becomes an expression of societal altruism; and ‘group identification’ where an individual identifies with an in-group they perceive as being victimised and feel anger towards the perceived perpetrators.” “In Tarrant’s case, he was already a radical before his attack, but his decision to do the shooting could arguably come from a feeling of personal responsibility to act, as demonstrated by his manifesto entries regarding the Islamist Stockholm attack, World War Two memorials, French immigration levels and Macron’s election in 2017.” (Tarrant saw Macron as an “internationalist, globalist, anti-white, ex-banker” whose election caused Tarrant’s emotions to swing “between fuming rage and suffocating despair at the indignity of the invasion of France” (referring to the immigration levels).”)
The Handa Centre study shows that perceived victimhood of self or others may be a powerful source of opinion radicalisation. It may in some cases lead to action radicalisation.
Whilst the Tarrant case may suggest care needs to be taken about the creation of victimhood, the Bondi Barbarians’ terrorism, the ISIS connection and Salafism lead to another point arising from the source of the emotional commitments which may lead some individuals to engage in radical activity.
Just published, retired Judge, David Harvey in his A Halfling’s View, The Quiet Revolution, discusses Tikanga and the Law - Evolution or Revolution. I’ve had quite a bit to say on that subject, making my opinion very clear that our courts’ holus bolus insertion of tikanga into law (as opposed to its legitimate use in matters-Māori disputes where a custom is proved to exist) is illegitimate political activism.
Harvey refers to a discussion of tikanga by Justice Matthew Palmer and says:
I have argued that the characteristics of tikanga Palmer describes are the reasons it cannot be law. Only a proved custom (irrespective of its origin) which satisfies the requirements for elevation to legal status can have that status. Cosmology, creation stories and the authority of atua (gods) do not cut the mustard as foundations for a system of law. I had not realised that I had the benefit of so helpful a description as Justice Palmer’s until reading retired Judge Harvey’s words. But I digress from the point I want to make.
Cosmology, creation stories and the authority of atua in the tikanga Māori context may be relatively benign when compared with ISIS and Salafism, but they have a common denominator. Faith.
Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, wrote, “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” Faith and knowledge cannot coexist. If something is known (can qualify as knowledge), that is because there is sufficient evidence in support and none to refute it. If there is sufficient evidence, there is no room for faith. As Kant’s pithy explanation demonstrates, the essence of faith is belief in the absence of knowledge, belief without evidence.
Human civilisation has progressively become more knowledgeable. More becomes known every day. A civilisation which regresses to reliance on creation stories and to the supposed dictates of atua moves backwards towards the primitive.
Online debate between Roger Partridge and Dame Anne Salmond shines another light on the same matter. Partridge says:
The underlying principle is that claims must be tested against reality using the tools available to us. The first tool is our ability to observe the natural world and to seek knowledge about it through observation (an ability which like knowledge itself has been immensely advanced by technologies developed in the modern era).
The second tool is logic which is the method available to our faculty of reason for evaluation of the material provided through observation. Broadly, what this means is that we must look for consistency (absence of contradictions). If there appears to be a contradiction something must be wrong. Perhaps a mistake in observation, so there really is no contradiction. Or one of the contradictory facts or propositions is wrong. Whether in the law or in science, or indeed in life generally, this is the process engaged in when we endeavour to ascertain the truth. If we have been able to ascertain the truth about something we are entitled to claim knowledge of that fact, remembering however that the claim may need to be provisional because subsequent observation may raise a need to question what now appears to be true.
Today there are those who claim that truth (or knowledge) is relative, that there may be his truth or her truth, Western truth, Colonial truth, Māori truth, and so on. It is not so. There is only one truth about any matter although we may not know what it is or we may be mistaken. Humans are fallible. We make mistakes. We are entitled to claim truth based on the information available to us. But when we are presented with evidence which contradicts what we previously thought, reason requires re-evaluation.
Those who insist on adhering to a subjectively preferred ‘knowledge’ despite being presented with contradictory evidence because, e.g., cultural sensitivity demands it, forfeit any entitlement to be taken seriously. It is even worse to cling to an idea shown to be false than to act on faith despite absence of evidence in support.
These observations started by discussing unspeakable evil, thence to other examples of unreason. They end with some words originating from the same region as ISIS, one a piece of great beauty, the other containing words of wisdom which are equally applicable today. Omar Khayyam was born in 1048 in Nishapur in Persia, now North Iran. Contributor to mathematics, astronomy, philosophy and Persian literature, his 83 years were filled with achievement.
He is best known today for his poetry given prominence in the English speaking world by Edward Fitzgerald’s nineteenth century translations of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Khayyam’s poetry was in groups of four lines of verse, quatrains (apparently that’s what rubaiyat means). Fitzgerald published 5 distinct editions, repeating quatrains with slightly different wordings, adding and subtracting quatrains. The first quatrain of the first edition is:
Anyone who has experienced dawn on a clear night at sea or, I imagine, in the desert, or indeed anywhere away from city light pollution, will appreciate the imagery evoked by the first two lines. Before the sun is seen the star-strewn dome one is set below slowly lightens and the stars gradually fade from sight.
When the sun does rise above the horizon shafts of light pick out features of the landscape. The Rubaiyat I chose to be a school prize has a striking illustration on the facing page of a hunter on a horse casting a lasso of light over a tower.
To more serious stuff. In his introduction to a book on algebra, Khayyam wrote:
The Encyclopaedia Brittanica before reproducing this quotation records that Khayyam “elevated reason above speculation and intuition,” referencing Khayyam in Dashti, p. 72. One might have thought and hoped that a thousand years on it would be unnecessary to defend those “sincere and unremitting in [their] search for the truth … who will have nothing to do with falsehood and pretence,” and to deplore attempts to put “speculation and intuition” above reason.
Gary Judd KC is a King's Counsel, former Chairman of ASB and Ports of Auckland and former member APEC Business Advisory Council. Gary blogs at Gary Judd KC Substack where this article was sourced.
ISIS-Philippines, also known as ISIS–East Asia, is a branch of ISIS that is based primarily in the Philippines and aspires to expand ISIS’s self-proclaimed caliphate to Southeast Asia. The US State Department designated ISIS-Philippines a foreign terrorist organization in February 2018. Mindanao has long been a hotbed of Islamic extremism, with ISIS seemingly the currently preferred brand.
Ostensibly, these events are completely divorced from contemporary New Zealand … except that the even more deadly event which occurred here so very recently was also directed at gatherings of a particular but different religion.
“Individual radicalisation is a complex and bespoke process influenced by multiple factors and variables, meaning every individual follows their own path to terrorism and political violence,” commences a paper “endeavour[ing] to demonstrate and explore some of the constitutive factors and processes in Brenton Tarrant’s path to radicalisation prior to his infamous Christchurch Mosque shooting in which 51 people lost their lives.”
This paper, from The Handa Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, within the School of International Relations at the Scottish University of St. Andrews, concludes that “despite being a lone actor in his attack, Tarrant was not radicalised in a vacuum; the internet allowed him to form social network ties and thus he was subject to group dynamics,” and “Tarrant’s decision to act was on the basis that he identified with a group which he perceived to be under threat. Tarrant thought he was one of the enlightened few and it was his responsibility to act to inspire others to do so too, like Breivik [the man who perpetrated the 2011 Norway attacks] had done for him.”
The paper’s thrust is that while “every individual follows their own path to terrorism and political violence,” the processes by which Tarrant, a lone actor, came to political violence share commonality with perpetrators’ more usual involvement with a group such as ISIS. The “group dynamics” factor was present.
During its analysis, the paper instances research suggesting that “the move from radical thought to action occurs through a dual-pyramid mode in which individuals with an unusually strong capacity to feel others’ sufferings experience an emotional reaction that converts the political into a personal moral obligation.” The dual pyramids are the “opinion radicalisation pyramid” and the “action radicalisation pyramid.”
In Tarrant’s case, available material (especially what he had written himself) suggested he was obsessed with the idea “whereby punishing ‘bad’ people becomes an expression of societal altruism; and ‘group identification’ where an individual identifies with an in-group they perceive as being victimised and feel anger towards the perceived perpetrators.” “In Tarrant’s case, he was already a radical before his attack, but his decision to do the shooting could arguably come from a feeling of personal responsibility to act, as demonstrated by his manifesto entries regarding the Islamist Stockholm attack, World War Two memorials, French immigration levels and Macron’s election in 2017.” (Tarrant saw Macron as an “internationalist, globalist, anti-white, ex-banker” whose election caused Tarrant’s emotions to swing “between fuming rage and suffocating despair at the indignity of the invasion of France” (referring to the immigration levels).”)
The Handa Centre study shows that perceived victimhood of self or others may be a powerful source of opinion radicalisation. It may in some cases lead to action radicalisation.
Whilst the Tarrant case may suggest care needs to be taken about the creation of victimhood, the Bondi Barbarians’ terrorism, the ISIS connection and Salafism lead to another point arising from the source of the emotional commitments which may lead some individuals to engage in radical activity.
Just published, retired Judge, David Harvey in his A Halfling’s View, The Quiet Revolution, discusses Tikanga and the Law - Evolution or Revolution. I’ve had quite a bit to say on that subject, making my opinion very clear that our courts’ holus bolus insertion of tikanga into law (as opposed to its legitimate use in matters-Māori disputes where a custom is proved to exist) is illegitimate political activism.
Harvey refers to a discussion of tikanga by Justice Matthew Palmer and says:
He [Palmer] describes tikanga as a set of binding principles, beliefs and traditions practised collectively by Māori whānau, hapū and iwi “since time immemorial.” Tikanga, he says, arises from Māori cosmology; it is grounded in creation stories and the authority of the atua. It embraces values such as whanaungatanga, manaakitanga, kaitiakitanga, mana, tapu, noa, utu and ea, and is expressed through practices like karakia, waiata, haka and whaikōrero. Tikanga is holistic, dynamic, context-dependent—and a “free-standing legal framework recognised in New Zealand law”.
I have argued that the characteristics of tikanga Palmer describes are the reasons it cannot be law. Only a proved custom (irrespective of its origin) which satisfies the requirements for elevation to legal status can have that status. Cosmology, creation stories and the authority of atua (gods) do not cut the mustard as foundations for a system of law. I had not realised that I had the benefit of so helpful a description as Justice Palmer’s until reading retired Judge Harvey’s words. But I digress from the point I want to make.
Cosmology, creation stories and the authority of atua in the tikanga Māori context may be relatively benign when compared with ISIS and Salafism, but they have a common denominator. Faith.
Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, wrote, “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” Faith and knowledge cannot coexist. If something is known (can qualify as knowledge), that is because there is sufficient evidence in support and none to refute it. If there is sufficient evidence, there is no room for faith. As Kant’s pithy explanation demonstrates, the essence of faith is belief in the absence of knowledge, belief without evidence.
Human civilisation has progressively become more knowledgeable. More becomes known every day. A civilisation which regresses to reliance on creation stories and to the supposed dictates of atua moves backwards towards the primitive.
Online debate between Roger Partridge and Dame Anne Salmond shines another light on the same matter. Partridge says:
In law, courts evaluate evidence according to standards of logic and credibility, as justice requires stable criteria.
None of this denies cultural insight. It simply shows that the world pushes back. Some claims can be tested. Some explanations outperform others. The tools we use to discover those differences – reason, evidence, criticism – are not cultural impositions. They are the means by which cultures exchange knowledge and learn from one another.
This is why Salmond’s postmodern relativism collapses under its own weight. If all knowledge is culturally bounded, then her argument has no authority outside her cultural frame. If reasoning is merely constructed, then her invitation to “openness” offers no reason to accept it. And if disagreement is arrogance, she is doing what she condemns.
The underlying principle is that claims must be tested against reality using the tools available to us. The first tool is our ability to observe the natural world and to seek knowledge about it through observation (an ability which like knowledge itself has been immensely advanced by technologies developed in the modern era).
The second tool is logic which is the method available to our faculty of reason for evaluation of the material provided through observation. Broadly, what this means is that we must look for consistency (absence of contradictions). If there appears to be a contradiction something must be wrong. Perhaps a mistake in observation, so there really is no contradiction. Or one of the contradictory facts or propositions is wrong. Whether in the law or in science, or indeed in life generally, this is the process engaged in when we endeavour to ascertain the truth. If we have been able to ascertain the truth about something we are entitled to claim knowledge of that fact, remembering however that the claim may need to be provisional because subsequent observation may raise a need to question what now appears to be true.
Today there are those who claim that truth (or knowledge) is relative, that there may be his truth or her truth, Western truth, Colonial truth, Māori truth, and so on. It is not so. There is only one truth about any matter although we may not know what it is or we may be mistaken. Humans are fallible. We make mistakes. We are entitled to claim truth based on the information available to us. But when we are presented with evidence which contradicts what we previously thought, reason requires re-evaluation.
Those who insist on adhering to a subjectively preferred ‘knowledge’ despite being presented with contradictory evidence because, e.g., cultural sensitivity demands it, forfeit any entitlement to be taken seriously. It is even worse to cling to an idea shown to be false than to act on faith despite absence of evidence in support.
These observations started by discussing unspeakable evil, thence to other examples of unreason. They end with some words originating from the same region as ISIS, one a piece of great beauty, the other containing words of wisdom which are equally applicable today. Omar Khayyam was born in 1048 in Nishapur in Persia, now North Iran. Contributor to mathematics, astronomy, philosophy and Persian literature, his 83 years were filled with achievement.
He is best known today for his poetry given prominence in the English speaking world by Edward Fitzgerald’s nineteenth century translations of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Khayyam’s poetry was in groups of four lines of verse, quatrains (apparently that’s what rubaiyat means). Fitzgerald published 5 distinct editions, repeating quatrains with slightly different wordings, adding and subtracting quatrains. The first quatrain of the first edition is:
AWAKE! for Morning in the Bowl of Night
Has flung the Stone that puts the Stars to Flight:
And Lo! the Hunter of the East has caught
The Sultan’s Turret in a Noose of Light.
Anyone who has experienced dawn on a clear night at sea or, I imagine, in the desert, or indeed anywhere away from city light pollution, will appreciate the imagery evoked by the first two lines. Before the sun is seen the star-strewn dome one is set below slowly lightens and the stars gradually fade from sight.
When the sun does rise above the horizon shafts of light pick out features of the landscape. The Rubaiyat I chose to be a school prize has a striking illustration on the facing page of a hunter on a horse casting a lasso of light over a tower.
To more serious stuff. In his introduction to a book on algebra, Khayyam wrote:
We are the victims of an age when men of science are discredited, and only a few remain who are capable of engaging in scientific research. Our philosophers spend all their time in mixing true with false and are interested in nothing but outward show; such little learning as they have they extend on material ends. When they see a man sincere and unremitting in his search for the truth, one who will have nothing to do with falsehood and pretence, they mock and despise him.
The Encyclopaedia Brittanica before reproducing this quotation records that Khayyam “elevated reason above speculation and intuition,” referencing Khayyam in Dashti, p. 72. One might have thought and hoped that a thousand years on it would be unnecessary to defend those “sincere and unremitting in [their] search for the truth … who will have nothing to do with falsehood and pretence,” and to deplore attempts to put “speculation and intuition” above reason.
Gary Judd KC is a King's Counsel, former Chairman of ASB and Ports of Auckland and former member APEC Business Advisory Council. Gary blogs at Gary Judd KC Substack where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.