Anti-Terrorism bill 2000. A necessary evil - Dissertation Example

rights activists who claim that the implementation of terror laws have failed to prevent extremism, instead have led to the establishment of theoretical and political movements, that claim these terror laws unfairly target the Islamic community. 1 There are also claims that the legislations have isolated the UK Islamic community from the general civic community, giving rise to an atmosphere of ager, mistrust, and hatred. The British coalition government has recently underlined the failure of ‘multiculturalism’ and brought forth the necessities of creating an ‘active muscular liberalism’ which would identify the root causes of extremist ideologies.

2 (PM’s speech at Munich Security Conference, 2011). Furthermore, in the 2010 review of terror related legislations and strategies, UK government proposed exploration of wider strategies for countering terrorism acts, known as CONTEST. The main idea underlining CONTEST is to alleviate the contingencies that may arise within UK from terrorism at a global level. This strategy is based on four main ideas, which are Prevention of terror acts; Pursue, that aims at blocking all kinds of terrorist attacks; Protection, to fortify the existing counter-terrorism systems against future terrorist attacks; and Preparation for terrorist attacks by assuaging its effect on the people (HM Government, Prevent Strategy, 2011).

The critics feel that the various counter-terrorism strategies and policies implemented in UK, has created a lack of trust between the Muslims, and the UK law enforcement agencies. 1.1 Background history The history of terror and counter-terrorism strategies to repress the terror acts were started as early as 1790s, when the French revolution and the associated acts of violence and radicalism created a panic in. The paper tells that the history of terror and counter-terrorism strategies to repress the terror acts were started as early as 1790s, when the French revolution and the associated acts of violence and radicalism created a panic in UK that such acts of ‘subversion’ would take place in Britain, against the ruler classes.

This prompted the adoption of various stringent measures by British Parliament and executive, against ‘sedition’, and a large number of the sanctioned civil liberties, won over through many years of strong activism, were removed due to pressure from various arenas. Thus, it was the first instance in UK where were many of the sanctioned civil liberties were cut short to abort acts of terror. However, UK used its special powers related to emergencies, primarily in the various colonial (occupied) territories, where during revolts against imposed British rule by the native residents, the ruling UK authorities often suspended all common legislative provisions and the rule of emergency declared.

Such emergencies would include detention in prisons without any trial, suspension of habeas corpus, and formation of military tribunals, and the regulating standards of the British common law were sidestepped during these times. Emergency powers were also widely in vogue during the two Great Wars, where the executive of the erstwhile UK government were given widespread powers to detain people involved or even suspected of being involved in activities related to helping the enemy, and various measures were taken to protect national security.