Do politicians slip too easily between the terms anti-terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration?
Terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration are being used as concepts. They are not concepts, they are acts carried out by diverse groups of individuals and they certainly are not of equal gravity. The agenda of politicians has been geared towards security. To attract more votes, conservative p oliticians tend to use the terms ‘anti-terrorism’, ‘organised crime’ and ‘illegal immigration’ as buzz words. This is very confusing for the public. This is also reflected to an extent in the EU Council of Ministers, which is made up of government officials from across the EU. There is a blurring of these terms to push for a security agenda and to attract public and media attention. We have to be careful not to create a security continuum by putting the three terms in the same basket. It is important to separate these terms. For example, human traffickers have to be distinguished from the illegal immigrants who try to come to Europe in search of a better life. Is the EU building a ‘fortr
Related Questions
- If Ive added new terms to my version of the CVKC. How can I merge easily all the terms in upcoming versions with my existing but heavily edited version?
- How flexible is the program in terms of area for PhD study? Can a student easily transfer within departments?
- Why do politicians give us political terms that hide the true horrors of war and occupation(ex. friendly fire)?
