Zifak's Argumentative Analysis

In critiquing the Foreign Fighters Bill introduced by the Australian government, Zifak (2014) notes how the vague wording of definitions meant that even individuals not involved in ‘terrorist’ activity overseas would be potentially trialled as so (p. 22). The bill notes “foreign incursion” (p. 22) as involving acts of “subversion” (p. 22), and plans to “overthrow the government” (p. 22). If such acts done overseas could be broadly categorised as acts of or in support of terror, Zifak argues that this implicates the possibilities of subversion for other ‘noble’ political or ideological motives. He cites East-Timorese Australians fighting against the “genocidal” (p. 23) Suharto in Indonesia as an example. Zifak’s critique shows how the line between
In extension, the possibility of becoming freedom fighters necessitates a removal of risk in congruence to political norms. It will argue this contradiction exists as a simultaneous acknowledgment of the terrorist’s politics and a violent silencing and denial of expression of the same. This essay will first discuss how terrorism is presented to us as irrefutably evil, as part of a spectacle that allays our fears about our identity. The essay will then explore how the politics of terrorism is demanded from Muslim populations, only to be denied or repressed, in order to maintain ethnic boundaries of identity premised on neoliberal norms. Lastly, the example of Nelson Mandela is presented to show how freedom fighters can only exist within the hegemonic framework of already existing values. It will also show how the law works to define and terrorism as politics beyond the realm of politics in a bid to control and censor challenges to liberal democracy (Christodoulidis & Veitch, 1994, pp. 463,