EVE Fiction

[Fiction] Star Fraction Interview part 2

A high pitched note interrupts Evet. Gaunia shifts in her seat producing an iridescent object from the sleeve of her white silk kosode, the size of a lipstick. She places the object before her on the desk, giving Evet an arch look. Beautiful, mother-of-pearl, Evet admires a miniature frieze, in basso-relievo, depicting a girl deshabille, in the embrace of a writhing octopus, tentacles amorously engaged in briny exploration of her most intimate parts. The maiden's toes curl. She's unsuccessfully attempting to preserve her modesty, pushing taffeta skirts between her legs. But on her face, such a look. Her eyes rolling up into a head thrown back in rapture. From a tiny opening, from the 'oh' of her delicate cupid bow lips, not a tiny tongue, a laser lances out tracing gridlines on Gaunia's face.

Evet: "Lewd, but lovely."

Gaunia: "Do you recognise the model?"

To fast for the human eye the laser strobes as it rotates slightly before it acquires Gaunia's eye. It recognises her retina before painting a keyboard under her finger tips as she starts typing.

Evet: "What the hell Gaunia, she's me, I think that must make the terminal mine."

Gaunia: "We will have to see."

Evet: "Is this the royal 'we'? You've totally overplayed this, it won't be good."

Gaunia: "Are you offended? By the way petit if you're wondering I have some colleagues, researchers if you like, listening and fact checking, et cetera."

Gaunia waves her beautifully manicured hands expressively when saying et cetera. Evet frowns, suddenly she looks much older than her clone.

Evet: "Just sad Gaunia, I just hoped, anyway let's get these questions over with."

Gaunia activates the cameras with a gesture.

Gaunia: "The accusations of terrorism? You spoke of political terror, the Fraction uses political violence to achieve its ends doesn't it?"

Evet: "No but it likely depends on how you define terrorism. I would define it as serious deliberate violence, or the threat of violence, committed with the intention of killing or injuring innocent people, or posing the threat of serious harm, in order to promote a political or social agenda. Targeting a limited number of people but with the aim of influencing many others, or the decision makers for the target group as a whole."

Gaunia: "Right, you target a limited number of people with the aim of effecting key decision makers, so your use of political violence is terrorism."

Evet: "Isn't it the normal practice in war to seek sufficient damage to persuade the enemy to comply with your demands? Politically motivated violence is not usually considered immoral unless you're a pacifist. The point is to convince the enemy of our superiority not to annihilate them. So alone that can't make the tactic terrorism can it?"

Gaunia (laughing): "If your list can't differentiate between warfare and terrorism, then it's useless. In any case I don't accept your definition of terrorism."

Evet: "Let's continue, or do you have alternative criteria to present?"

Gaunia: "Don't be a child; are you trying to be provocative? Yes I can think of additional criteria petit."

Evet: (laughs and smiling) "Always, but tell me is it my innocent naiveté, or my intention to provoke you that are obstacles to examining either 'innocence' or intentionality' in my definition of terrorism?"

Gaunia: "Touché, but 'innocence' really that's so vague, who recognises such immunity? Terrorism is an evil certainly, but if you automatically condemn the killing of innocents aren't you unable to weigh any justification for violence?"

Evet: "Hey that's versatile 'Terrorism is evil but you're disturbed that we might be rationally unable to terrorise effectively if we grant immunity to the innocent. Anyway of course it doesn't. It simply moves the fulcrum to culpability. However, I recognise that argument, I've heard it before, from politicians even though I've yet to meet an honest realist who openly holds that terrorism is 'only' wrong when it's not in their national interest. Who recognises such immunity? Well does it surprise me that the oligarchy of each state would hold such views in common? Logically their views agree, because there interests are the same: control, while opposed to the interests of the ordinary citizen."

Gaunia: "Remove those references to innocence and intentionality and instead include, that terrorism is carried out by non-state groups that don't wear uniforms or identifying insignia. That is the principle terror, that these non-governmental actors are able to target our citizens outside of the law."

Evet: "Remove the intentional killing of innocents from the definition of terrorism and add state immunity, you have some nerve to accuse me of naiveté."

Evet, shakes her head, nothing of the morning remains, whether it's absent or withheld isn't clear to her. Gaunia's hair is up, in a french twist her long neck in ropes of pears, in the tips of her ears pearl studs, and her long legs hidden in a hakama of stiff, striped silk. Elegantly restrained, a rich, powerful, conceited woman.

Gaunia: "Not really, it's your definition that fails to convey that it's only government that possesses the legitimate legal and moral authority to do those things that ordinary citizens should never do or be able to do. For goodness sake woman that's the whole point of the designation: to enable states to combat the threat of terror."

((oops sorry about that, was trying to edit a confusing sentence and accidentally hit the quote button without noticing I had ))