Anti Terrorism Legislation May Infringe Human Rights

Anti Terrorism Legislation May Infringe Human Rights Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Law Essay Writing Service . You can view samples of our professional work here . Anti Terrorism Legislation May Infringe Human Right UK Anti- terrorism legislation of the past decade has been a passionately debated topic both within the media and the legislature itself. On one hand, it is argued that any nation should indeed encompass the ability to prevent any terrorist atrocity carried out against its people even if it is at the cost of human rights infringement. On the other hand, a tax on civil liberties has often been deemed an atrocity within its own rights and the recent influx of legislation has done nothing other than help with the evolution of global terrorism.   [ 1 ]    That the horrific events of September 11th 2001 changed the face of Terrorism is not at all in doubt. It was the end of the terrorism the world once knew as guerrilla violence for political gain. The violence administered on the New York skyscrapers was an unprecedented act which prompted an unprecedented reaction. Legislation in relation to terrorism in the UK was eagerly debat ed and following the 7th July 2005 it was accepted that the UK were not immune to attack thus facilitating the new legislation into position. Though anti-terrorist legislation has long existed in the UK and, much of which, has been incorporated within the recent developments, many new offences have also emerged creating a shift in the balance of power between the public and those forces responsible for administering the new legislation. Naturally there has been a significant increase in relation to the scope of police powers. Furthermore, the ‘Intelligence Communities’   [ 2 ]   have also capitalised in the power shift, especially in relation to covert intelligence gathering. To venture further into the effects of the recent developments to the legislation, it is important to analyse the current framework. A natural point of focus would be the definition of terrorist activity. Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 outlines terrorist activity as: â€Å"the use or thre at of action where, the action involves serious violence against a person, serious damage to property, endangers a person’s life or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public.†Ã‚  The  Ã¢â‚¬Å"use or threat† must be â€Å"designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public†¦Ã¢â‚¬ Ã‚   [ 3 ]    Section 2 of the same Act outlines a terrorist offender is someone who: â€Å"is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism†Ã‚   [ 4 ]    Since the face of terror has changed to cell based networks, certain organisations are listed under the 2000 Act   [ 5 ]   as terrorist organisation, a recent addition to which has been Al-Qaeeda. A recent development emerging from the new legislation is the offence of organisations ‘glorifying’ terrorism being added to the list under s. 21 Terrorism Act 2006. This is not a question of whether such a provision is an intrusion on human r ights; free speech in particular, as it obviously is but rather to what extent is such taxation justifiable. Joining or rallying support of such proscribed groups is also a punishable offence under s. 12(1) of the 2006 Act. Arranging meeting and to address meeting of proscribed groups is also punishable under ss. 12(2) and 12(3) respectively. Even clothing worn in a manner that may raise suspicion that the wearer is a member of a proscribed group may earn a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment as per s.13 of the 2006 Act.