|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
There exists a definitional and moral confusion surrounding what terrorism actually is. ... Indeed, each sovereign state reserves the political and legal right to define terrorism as it so chooses, with relation to domestic and foreign affairs. It comes as no surprise therefore, that for legislators, terrorism has an adequately accurate legal interpretation to enable them to enact counter-terrorism legislation.
Traditionally, the Uk’s terrorist legislation was characterised by emergency provisions in response to the political unrest in Northern Ireland. Such acts as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 (PTA 1974) were inscribed with powers of detention and internment, special courts, extensive powers of entry, search and seizure, the waiving of the right to silence, and the intrusion of limits on freedom of movement through the introduction of proscription. The PTA 1974 defined terrorism as ‘the use of violence for political ends (including) any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public in fear. ...
This leads us on to the present UK definition of terrorism which is found under s.1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000). According to this section of legislation, ‘terrorism’ is ‘the use or threat of action, designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, where the action:
• involves serious violence against a person;
• involves serious damage to property;
• endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action;
• creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or;
• is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. ... This legal definition of terrorism by the UK has come under much criticism from some commentators for not being just and for not being balanced with the problem at hand.
The UK’s definition of terrorism is drawn very widely. It matters not which governments are being affected or where, globally, the so-called ‘terrorism’ takes place. ... Surely it could be argued therefore, that under the existing climate (the fact that the UK has never been a sole victim of international terrorism, one of the main reasons for the TA 2000 being passed) the UK’s definition of terrorism is not just and balanced as it now threatens many organisations that people would think of as worthwhile or legitimate.
Approximate Word count = 1804
Approximate Pages = 7.2
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|