Anti-Terrorism in the UK
The United Kingdom stands out from the world with its distinctive anti-terrorism policy, which gives the government extended powers to arrest, detain, and supervise those believed to be potential terrorists beyond what many other countries find suitable (Feikert & Doyle 2). The UK’s legislation surrounding terrorism is the product of policy that has evolved over time as the result of attacks taken out on the UK itself as well as global events that highlight the need for protection. The government has put together a thorough policy in response to terrorism, as well as preventative measures in an attempt to prevent such events from happening in the future. However, some measures taken by the government are seen by citizens and global critics to violate individual liberties and infringe on privacy. While the safety of its citizens is the prime motive of such policy, some people have been left to feel discriminated against in their own country. While the UK’s anti-terrorism policy is no doubt comprehensive, including measures to pursue, prevent, prepare, and protect the people from the threat of terrorism, the government is going to have to deal with the controversy regarding discrimination in order to satisfy its citizens and prevent future homegrown terrorist attacks.
Terrorism is a difficult subject to tackle as it is hard to define. There is no collectively accepted definition in either the legal, civil, or academic sense of the word (Panter 579). The government of the UK defines terrorism as “the use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public; made for the purposes of advancing a political...
... middle of paper ...
...ent needs to take this situation into consideration when creating laws, especially those that restrict the liberties of individuals.
The UK’s unique style of government and policy history places it in a distinctive position compared to the rest of the world when it comes to counter terrorism measures. The government has created new policies over decades, which have been notable in their restriction of liberties and privacies of its citizens. It has become a controversy as to whether this should be allowed in order to protect the population as a whole or if these measures are a violation of human rights. Such policy is risky in that it might make some who feel discriminated against or disconnected turn to terrorism. While the UK’s anti-terrorism policy is detailed and comprehensive, it must take this into account and deal with the controversy in future legislation.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
It is indeed sad that some people have to pay the price of criminals. However, when we see it from another perspective we might understand the reasons that may support it. The tragically events of 9/11 have change many things, in particular the safety of our people and policies of national security, as for instance the Anti-terrorism Act. The US government claims that this act is supported by several claims: one, this law is necessary to fulfill international obligations; two, many allied countries had ratified similar laws. And third, this Act provides greater protection than other legislations, (Boccabella, 2003). These legislations are not passed overnight, but after much study and critical thinking of possible consequences. What does not
Spalek and Imtoual (2007) state that in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 and the following of subsequent terrorist attacks in the UK and Europe, there has been a shift of focus on black minorities to Asian minorities and as a result there has been an increased surveillance amongst Asian and Muslim minority groups. Since the year 2000, numerous contemporary anti-terror laws have been instated the law affecting minority groups the most being most influential the Terrorism Act 2000. The Terrorism Act 2000 affected minority groups by enhancing police powers to investigate terrorism, including wider stop and search powers, and the power to detain suspects after arrest for up to 14 days. (Spalek and Imtoual, 2007). As a result, statistics in Britain in 2002-2003, sugested that under counter-terrorism legislation, stop and searches carried out amongst Asian minorities increased by 302% in a year, in which Hare and Weinstein (2010, p.483) in their literary research on democracy, state that the Muslim Council of Britain claimed that the police are misusing their new enhanced powers and
...tee against arbitrary and malicious persecution of individuals by the state; by weakening those protections, the government has opened the doors to new encroachments on the liberties that all residents of the United States rightfully enjoy.
As the case in Illinois clearly demonstrates, concerns about the fundamental discrepancy between a government's authority and what that government's authority guarantees are still being resolved. Cases like Tinker still have meaning and relevance to the situations of today, but at the same time, the lesson of Slotterback and innumerable other cases is that precedent can be defied, that every new generation requires a new interpretation of the provisions and guarantees made in grand terms vague enough to allow just such reinterpretation. History shows that censorship can be unfolded into either prior restraint or public forum, the approach from liberty or the approach from authority. Judicial sympathies have swung from one to the other with some regularity. With an issue as contentious as this, we can safely expect they will continue to do so.
...ady become dangerous. The law should prevent the dangerous behavior that could be a result of an individual rather than requiring the individual to become dangerous in order to receive help.
Over the past century, terrorism has advanced from random killings to enormous plans for terrorist groups. To understand terrorism, you must first define it. Terrorism as we all know it is hard to define and understand, and has many different definitions as it is used widely. The word "terrorism" stems from the word "terror", which means to instill fear in. People become terrorists when they take the actions towards instilling fear and terror upon people to prove a certain point or agenda.
Siggins, P. (2002). Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved July 29, 2010 from: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/profiling.html
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
One of the many details shown is that mass surveillance has not had an apparent impact on the prevention of terrorism (Greenwald, 2013). Most of the information gathered has not been used to impede a terrorist attack. Surveillance does not protect the rights to life, property and so on from being violated by terrorists. However it gives the citizen...
The concept of terrorism is exceedingly difficult to define. Author Gerald Seymour first said in his book Harry’s Game that, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Each individual may view terrorism in a different light. Because of this, there is currently no universal definition of terrorism. However, in recent years, it has become increasingly more important to form a definition of terrorism, especially while working in the media.
Terrorism will happen again regardless of how prepared the U.S. thinks it may be. This means that it is the country’s job to ensure that there is a continuation of measures that should be taken to fight against terrorism. Others believe that the U.S. is fully prepared for another terrorist attack and that enough has been done. The question at hand is, should the U.S. still be concerned about terrorism. The United States needs to be concerned about terrorism to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again, to address problems with domestic terrorism, and to improve homeland security.
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,
In this world there are many different topics of controversy. With every controversial topic comes different views and arguments explaining why people believe what they do. There are problems that can be just within one country or throughout the entire world. Terrorism affects everyone in the world, specifically us as Americans, which is why it is one of the biggest controversial topics. Of course with a topic as big as terrorism, there are emic and etic perspectives involved. With past history, there are specific countries and religions that we think of when we hear the word terrorism, specifically Afghanistan, located in the Middle East and the Muslim religion in that general area. Being part of the American