The Human Rights Act and Anti-Terrorism in the Uk: One Great Leap Forward by Parliament, but Are the Courts Able to Slow the Steady Retreat That Has Followed?

In a world that is known of many backgrounds, cultures, religions, and most important different views on the way of life. We face the biggest challenge in civilization and that’s diversity, because of the fact all over the world we disagree more than we can agree on what is taking place in this world many places result in violence to solve problems. Most of the violence that take place are within the nation. People tend to fight again things they feel doesn’t apply to them or would affect their way of living. However, a major problem global is that when nations can’t agree internationally on ceasing something that another feel is not lawful that’s when things become more complex. And the act of terrorism against

Australia’s first anti-terror laws were enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 (Prof Andrew Lynch 2010). In recent years, increasing Australian involvement in international conflict has seen these laws shift to accommodate alarming trends in home grown terrorism (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2014). Sydney’s 2014 terror raids prompted the most significant changes to Australia’s counter terrorism legislation in the last decade (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence 2015). Amendments granted law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and somewhat controversial powers, in the name of national security.

The case of Thomas v Mowbray revolutionised and created a new, broad, perspective of the constitutional defence powers in regards to terrorism. This was the first case to reach the High Court on the validity of anti-terrorism measures that were recently introduced to Australia by the executive. Thomas made several submissions within this case, including that the defence power was limited to defence against threats from foreign states and that the words ‘naval and military’ present in the wording of the section confines the defence power to those activities and cannot underpin broader activities to protect the community. Unfortunately, on the first point there was a 6:1 majority that the law was valid under the power for threats both domestic and foreign. Kirby J dissent held that the Commonwealth had essentially failed to establish the factual basis that was needed to support its reliance on the defence power. Further, Kirby J concluded that the ‘facts underpinning the war on terror did not constitute hostilities for the purposes of the first limb of the defence power.’ The majority of the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the anti-terrorism laws that allowed for the courts to impose control orders upon persons of whom they believed to pose a threat due to their connections to listed terrorist organisations, regardless of the possibly that some derogable rights maybe be overridden. The control order imposed on Thomas required him to remain in his residence

For our purposes, we will use the Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d), to define terrorism. It defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). Examples of terrorism persist on a near daily basis around the world. Unstable countries, such as Afghanistan and Syria, deal with terrorist attacks on a constant basis. The common thread of these attacks is deliberate targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political objectives. The best known and largest example are

In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.

POL 201 Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror

In coordination with the growing outcomes of terrorism, both international and domestic, we can examine the effectiveness of Australian Law in balancing the rights of the individual and the state. Throughout the course of time we see the changing face of international terrorism and how it has implications that are far reaching and affect our day to day rights and freedoms. I will be referring to the following cases in my response; Mohamed Haneef, David Hicks, Peter Greste and also Australian citizens involved in ISIL.

The second change that the Anti-Terrorism Act needs is to change the language that makes the new law so vague. Right now the law is said so that it covers “terrorism offences in general”. We already knew that it was illegal to commit a terrorist act or facilitate an act, however; the amendment makes promoting or advocating terrorism a criminal offence, and although few people speak out in favor in terrorism, the new act would make speech supporting terrorism illegal,

Since 9/11, the Australian government has enacted over 60 counter-terrorism laws to assist in the fight against the rising threat of terrorism in Australia. This legislation has recently been brought into question given the rise of extremist groups such as Islamic State and the lifting of Australia’s terror level to “High”. Prior to 9/11 there were no specific laws in order to combat terrorism specifically in the Criminal Code. Australia’s national anti-terror laws are alarming not just in their volume, but also in their widespread scope. They include powers for warrantless searches, the banning of organisations, preventive detention, and the undisclosed detention and interrogation of non-suspect citizens by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The progress of these laws though parliament was eased by Australia’s absence of a national bill or charter of rights. The fast enactment of the laws was also aided by an apprehensive atmosphere and a feeling of urgency. This quick enactment has raised concerns over the many years since the legislation passed regarding the facilitation of the rule of law given the extensive powers that the Commonwealth has in regards to national defence and security. One such example of legislation that has proven to be controversial and has drawn supporters and critics alike are control orders under Division 104 of the Criminal Code. The paper will assess whether or not

Terrorism is an act of violence, usually done in the public sphere, which is used to incite fear in a population in order to coerce change in public opinion or a government’s position on an issue. In many parts of the world, groups wage war with their countries, either to separate from the government or to overthrow it entirely. Sometimes these people are treated unfairly by their government, and their struggles are justified. Other times, these groups use violence against both military and civilian targets, terrorizing innocent bystanders to get what they want—these groups are terrorists. Often, though, it is difficult to tell the difference.

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

3) “It was not until after 9/11 that democratic countries introduced legislation that criminalised an ‘act of terrorism’” (O’Hare, 2011) To aid police in their fight against terrorism, the Australian Government has made a significant number of changes to current legislation, as well as introducing a number of new counter-terrorism laws to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorist threats. “The states and territories have referred legislative powers to the Commonwealth to allow the creation of a single set of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) These amendments, and additional legislation, have been instrumental in allowing law enforcement to respond to terrorist threats. In addition to new criminal offences, new powers include; more effective detention and questioning powers; the ability to declare terrorist organisations illegal; and the ability to exercise more control over people’s movements. The new counter-terrorism “offences are aimed at individuals who engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or provide support for terrorist acts.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) Other tools within the Criminal Code available are ‘control orders’ and ‘preventative detention’. “Control orders are protective measures that can restrict a person’s movements and activities.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 57) Whereas

In 2005 the terrorist attack in London (7/7) killed 56 people and 700 were injured. This was the largest and deadliest terrorist attack in London in history. It is clear that law enforcement agencies powers have increases with the statutes that have been implemented. The Terrorist Act 200 created a power to carry out blanket stop and searches. The Anti- Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 introduced new powers for the Treasury to freeze terrorist funds

Bill C-51 also known as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, is a bill that was first tabled in Parliament in January 2015. It was introduced to enhance Canada’s original anti-terror laws which were created shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 in the United States of America. Moreover, the need to revise and amend these laws became even more evident after recent attacks both in Canada and abroad. In doing so the government recognized the need to adopt a more preventative approach to dealing with internal and external threats. However, there are a large number of individuals, groups and institutions which opposed this bill. This was evident in March of 2015 when political protests were held and over fifty-five rallies took place across Canada (Lepore, 1). The majority of those opposed to the new anti-terror legislation expressed concerns with three major components of the bill and the vagueness; to privacy concerns with the new information sharing between agencies, new amendments to the Criminal Code surrounding terrorism offences and the increased powers provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); specifically their perceived lack of oversight. Although this piece of legislation is crucial to the safety and security of Canada against acts of terrorism it requires some amendments in order to ensure proper oversight and respect for Canadian values. This paper will argue that changes need to be made to the CSIS act, specifically regarding

War Against Terror and Human Rights The Human Rights Act 1998 took full legal effect across the English and Welsh legal systems on October 2nd 1998. The Act, allows people to claim a number of the rights and freedoms that are set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government had high hopes that when the act was passed it would create a 'Culture of Human Rights within the United Kingdom.'