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.

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention Essay

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention - Essay Example The Human Rights Act of 1998 is an act of Parliament,whose main aim is to ensure that it gives further force the laws concerning human rights,contained in the European Convention.It gives the courts in the United Kingdom the power to deal with those issues,which might cause the citizens of this country to go to the European Court The act makes it illegal for all public bodies to take any actions or decisions which are in contravention to the European Convention on Human Rights. The only exception to this is Parliament,  because it has the legislative capacity in the United Kingdom, and should, therefore, remain sovereign. This Act requires all the courts in the United Kingdom to take into account the decisions which have been made by the court at Strasbourg, as well as to interpret the legislation of Parliament, so that their decisions can be as far as possible in compatibility with the Convention on Human Rights. It is, however, impossible to interpret an Act of Parliament to make it compatible with the provisions of the Convention, because courts are not allowed to override such acts (Kavanagh 2006, 179). Instead, all these courts are allowed to do is to issue a declaration of incompatibility so that the validity of a Parliamentary Act is not affected. One of the reasons why this Act does not affect Parliamentary Acts is because  one of its aims is to ensure that the sovereignty of Parliament is maintained in the United Kingdom, because it is the supreme legislative body (Feldman 2008, 8). However, the Act still gives individuals the option of taking their cases to the court of Strasbourg if they feel that they are not satisfied by the decisions of the local courts. The main function of the Human Rights Act is to give courts in the United Kingdom the power to deduce legislation so that it is in compatibility with the human rights as stated in the European Convention on Human Rights (Hope 1999, 185). This does not mean that the legislation is invalidated, and instead, the amendment of the legislation is permitted, at a fast pace, to ensure that they are in compatibility with the convention. The amendment does not necessarily remain permanent, and, in fact, it has been known for  Courts of Appeal to overturn such court decisions. This Act has to be implemented by all the public bodies in the United Kingdom except for Parliament. The public bodies, which are directly affected by this Act, include the central government as well as the local government. The courts are given wide powers to ensure that they are able to interpret both principal and subsidiary legislation so that they are attuned with the convention. The interpretation of these powers goes far beyond the normal statutory interpretation because they include the interpretation of legislation made in the past as well as those which are to be made in future (Satvinder 2006, 29). This interpretation ensures that the Human Rights Act is protected from being repealed by implicati on. The interpretation has been applied by courts in three different interpretations. The first of these is known as reading in, which refers to the insertion of words into a statute if it is found that there is none which appear in it. Another of these applications is known as reading out, and this refers to words being omitted from a statute if they are found to be in contravention with the European Convention. The last of these is known as reading down which refers to an  interpretation being declared to be in compliance with the convention (Gihring 2000, 203). However, if the courts find it difficult to interpret a statute so that it can be compatible to the European Convention on Human Rights, then they may issues a declaration of incompatibility, and in such cases, only higher courts have the power to make such declarations. Declarations of incompatibility are usually made

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention Essay

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention - Essay Example The Human Rights Act of 1998 is an act of Parliament,whose main aim is to ensure that it gives further force the laws concerning human rights,contained in the European Convention.It gives the courts in the United Kingdom the power to deal with those issues,which might cause the citizens of this country to go to the European Court The act makes it illegal for all public bodies to take any actions or decisions which are in contravention to the European Convention on Human Rights. The only exception to this is Parliament,  because it has the legislative capacity in the United Kingdom, and should, therefore, remain sovereign. This Act requires all the courts in the United Kingdom to take into account the decisions which have been made by the court at Strasbourg, as well as to interpret the legislation of Parliament, so that their decisions can be as far as possible in compatibility with the Convention on Human Rights. It is, however, impossible to interpret an Act of Parliament to make it compatible with the provisions of the Convention, because courts are not allowed to override such acts (Kavanagh 2006, 179). Instead, all these courts are allowed to do is to issue a declaration of incompatibility so that the validity of a Parliamentary Act is not affected. One of the reasons why this Act does not affect Parliamentary Acts is because  one of its aims is to ensure that the sovereignty of Parliament is maintained in the United Kingdom, because it is the supreme legislative body (Feldman 2008, 8). However, the Act still gives individuals the option of taking their cases to the court of Strasbourg if they feel that they are not satisfied by the decisions of the local courts. The main function of the Human Rights Act is to give courts in the United Kingdom the power to deduce legislation so that it is in compatibility with the human rights as stated in the European Convention on Human Rights (Hope 1999, 185). This does not mean that the legislation is invalidated, and instead, the amendment of the legislation is permitted, at a fast pace, to ensure that they are in compatibility with the convention. The amendment does not necessarily remain permanent, and, in fact, it has been known for  Courts of Appeal to overturn such court decisions. This Act has to be implemented by all the public bodies in the United Kingdom except for Parliament. The public bodies, which are directly affected by this Act, include the central government as well as the local government. The courts are given wide powers to ensure that they are able to interpret both principal and subsidiary legislation so that they are attuned with the convention. The interpretation of these powers goes far beyond the normal statutory interpretation because they include the interpretation of legislation made in the past as well as those which are to be made in future (Satvinder 2006, 29). This interpretation ensures that the Human Rights Act is protected from being repealed by implicati on. The interpretation has been applied by courts in three different interpretations. The first of these is known as reading in, which refers to the insertion of words into a statute if it is found that there is none which appear in it. Another of these applications is known as reading out, and this refers to words being omitted from a statute if they are found to be in contravention with the European Convention. The last of these is known as reading down which refers to an  interpretation being declared to be in compliance with the convention (Gihring 2000, 203). However, if the courts find it difficult to interpret a statute so that it can be compatible to the European Convention on Human Rights, then they may issues a declaration of incompatibility, and in such cases, only higher courts have the power to make such declarations. Declarations of incompatibility are usually made

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention Essay

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention - Essay Example The Human Rights Act of 1998 is an act of Parliament,whose main aim is to ensure that it gives further force the laws concerning human rights,contained in the European Convention.It gives the courts in the United Kingdom the power to deal with those issues,which might cause the citizens of this country to go to the European Court The act makes it illegal for all public bodies to take any actions or decisions which are in contravention to the European Convention on Human Rights. The only exception to this is Parliament,  because it has the legislative capacity in the United Kingdom, and should, therefore, remain sovereign. This Act requires all the courts in the United Kingdom to take into account the decisions which have been made by the court at Strasbourg, as well as to interpret the legislation of Parliament, so that their decisions can be as far as possible in compatibility with the Convention on Human Rights. It is, however, impossible to interpret an Act of Parliament to make it compatible with the provisions of the Convention, because courts are not allowed to override such acts (Kavanagh 2006, 179). Instead, all these courts are allowed to do is to issue a declaration of incompatibility so that the validity of a Parliamentary Act is not affected. One of the reasons why this Act does not affect Parliamentary Acts is because  one of its aims is to ensure that the sovereignty of Parliament is maintained in the United Kingdom, because it is the supreme legislative body (Feldman 2008, 8). However, the Act still gives individuals the option of taking their cases to the court of Strasbourg if they feel that they are not satisfied by the decisions of the local courts. The main function of the Human Rights Act is to give courts in the United Kingdom the power to deduce legislation so that it is in compatibility with the human rights as stated in the European Convention on Human Rights (Hope 1999, 185). This does not mean that the legislation is invalidated, and instead, the amendment of the legislation is permitted, at a fast pace, to ensure that they are in compatibility with the convention. The amendment does not necessarily remain permanent, and, in fact, it has been known for  Courts of Appeal to overturn such court decisions. This Act has to be implemented by all the public bodies in the United Kingdom except for Parliament. The public bodies, which are directly affected by this Act, include the central government as well as the local government. The courts are given wide powers to ensure that they are able to interpret both principal and subsidiary legislation so that they are attuned with the convention. The interpretation of these powers goes far beyond the normal statutory interpretation because they include the interpretation of legislation made in the past as well as those which are to be made in future (Satvinder 2006, 29). This interpretation ensures that the Human Rights Act is protected from being repealed by implicati on. The interpretation has been applied by courts in three different interpretations. The first of these is known as reading in, which refers to the insertion of words into a statute if it is found that there is none which appear in it. Another of these applications is known as reading out, and this refers to words being omitted from a statute if they are found to be in contravention with the European Convention. The last of these is known as reading down which refers to an  interpretation being declared to be in compliance with the convention (Gihring 2000, 203). However, if the courts find it difficult to interpret a statute so that it can be compatible to the European Convention on Human Rights, then they may issues a declaration of incompatibility, and in such cases, only higher courts have the power to make such declarations. Declarations of incompatibility are usually made

How historians make use of other social sciences Essay

How historians make use of other social sciences - Essay Example By tradition and definition, history requires certain written records which can be evaluated and reviewed. Verbal or the oral history often gets lost and the historians or the interested professionals try to understand the history through folklores and myths where there is no written account. History has normally been understood as common memory of the people that provides with the detailed account of the past. The subject also imprisons shared experiences, values and ideas and helps one to analyze the past to figure out the future ideas, experiences and values. The tools offered by the social sciences are â€Å"behind† or â€Å"beneath† historical institutions, ideas and events (dimensions of economic change, social inequality, population growth and mobility, social protest, behavior and mass attitude and voting patterns) (Robinson,†History†). As discussed earlier, history is an amalgamation of various other subjects particularly social sciences. Also, the trend among the historians suggests that the scholars of history have used other disciplines of social science within the periphery of the gamut of history. The scholars of the field often used other related subjects like geography, political science, law and economics in order to analyze the historical events. The scholars of the subject believe that without inculcating other social sciences, historical events cannot be understood in the right and the best spirit. According to the school of thought, one must know about the political happenings or the geographical particulars of any area or person before knowing the history of the person or of the area. Such inculcation provides wider spectrum and helps a lot to understand the exact scheme of things that had occurred long back. Many of the scholars are of the view that such usage of other social science subjects with in the domain of history is because of the fact that all of the social science subjects are inter –