Stephen Crittenden is quite critical in this interview on the Religion Report with Associate Professor Anthony Burke of the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra, but at one point he lets him off the hook entirely:Stephen Crittenden:
Stephen Crittenden: One of the big themes of Critical Terrorism Studies is counter-terrorism. You say counter-terrorism, border protection, deterrence, homeland security, you describe them as ‘perverse, violent, exclusivist, ontologising technologies’. And you say, ‘counter terrorist strategies actually provoke the very thing they claim to be protecting us from.’ Is there any evidence that tough security measures are counter-productive in that way, that they actually provoke terrorism?
Anthony Burke: We don’t have evidence yet, but there’s a legitimate concern that – oh, you’re just trying to push me into a corner and not happy about it.
Stephen Crittenden: Look, let’s change the subject and take a look a bit more broadly.
“Let’s change the subject”!? Why??? You’ve got him by the short and curlies just where you want him, and you let him off the hook? He’s admitted that “we don’t have evidence” (the “yet” is rather hopeful) – and you let him get away with it! What sort of critical interviewing is this?