V for Vendetta, film by James McTeigue

Noam Chomsky reveals afterwards that while 153 countries voted for the resolution, only two opposed it: the United States of America and Israel. He says both countries could not tolerate resistance to Africa’s apartheid regime or to the foreign occupation which included “Israel’s military occupation, then in its twentieth year” (Chomsky 190). He later says both countries deny “that such actions can be legitimate resistance, and declaring them to be terrorism.”

As regards state terrorism, it is, simply put, the use of terrorism by one state against another or against its own citizens. Myra Williamson notes that “Historically, terrorism was a type of behaviour perpetrated by governments against their citizens, whereas now it is more often perceived as a strategy directed against governments via the targeting of civilians” (39-40).

Terrorism in the Film

In the film, both V and the British government under Adam Sutler used terrorism to achieve their ends. Near the climax of the film, V explains to Finch just what exactly Adam Sutler and Creedy are covering up: that of their human experimentation in order to create a virus that they would use against British citizens. By releasing the virus, they create a panic in Britain in which the citizens would sacrifice most of their liberties in favor of a more orderly nation. Through this revelation, the audience is confronted with the most blatant example of terrorism, even more offensive than the British secret police the Fingermen.

V seeks to avenge himself against those who used him as a test subject for the virus, but has decided to attack the root cause of his tragedy: the terrorist state. He starts a series of murders ending the lives of those involved in the human experimentation pr...

... middle of paper ...

...ain weight must be given to the change that the Wachowski brothers brought to the film, in that it was not anarchy per se that V advocated, but the freedom of a people who no longer wanted to be complacent to the tyranny of a corrupt government.

There is no hard and fast conclusion when the concept of terrorism is sought to be clarified. There is only human folly. Perhaps in the future there will be a more comprehensive definition of terrorism. Perhaps in our lifetimes the United Nations can once and for all settle this age-old dilemma. And perhaps powerful countries will not willingly confuse terrorism with legitimate resistance. In the meantime, we have human rights, including the right to self-determination. In the words of Ludwig Von Mises, “No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want” (34).