Are human rights compatible with the fear of terrorism? Discuss this question with specific reference to the UK and human rights act 1998.

Are human rights compatible with the fear of terrorism?

Discuss this question with specific reference to the UK and human rights act 1998.

When considering this question we need to first establish meanings of the terms. Human rights has previously been defined by the new oxford dictionary as the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law, however we must look for a broader and more inclusive definition.

Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former president of Ireland, said she is working to broaden the definition of human rights. Robinson, who is the second person to hold the position of human rights commissioner since it was created in 1993 said, "We have to be strong advocates of both sets of rights and see the interdependencies between them."

The rights should include not only the civil and political rights that most industrialised and western societies adopt but also "economic, social and cultural rights" such as the right to food, clothing, housing, medical care and education, that are lacking in many countries. At the international level with specific relation to the root problems of terrorism, Robinson said, that working with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and officials of other economic development programs to see human rights as part of their agenda in policymaking. The United Nations recently changed its structure so that all its program leaders are responsible for reporting how what they are doing affects human rights. At the national level, Robinson urged countries to work toward developing new "shared rules of engagement." Governments need to be more clear on when the international community will take action not just to stop gross human rights violations, such as ethnic cleansings in Rwanda and Kosovo, but when they will have a diplomatic presence to engage in "confidence building" among parties that seem to be headed toward crisis.

Guaranteeing human rights, however, requires grassroots, individual efforts that people start in their own communities. One way for people to engage with issues of ethnic violence is to start working locally on projects that could be linked to the problems of racism and xenophobia. Non-governmental groups engage in local and regional meetings to discuss how victims of discrimination and hate crimes are redressed in their own communities, leading to discussion of comparative practices at the international meetings. Ethnic violence is often preceded by discriminatory practices such as not allowing people to be schooled in their own language or to have doctors from their own ethnic group.

The industrialized countries are quick to complain about the lack of political rights in poor countries, she said, but do not talk about economic, social and cultural rights. Without those, she said, political rights and democracy are always tenuous.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Although legislation in many countries purportedly addresses terrorism, very few have dared define the word. In its broadest sense terrorism can be thought of as the use or threatened use of force against civilians designed to bring about political or social change. Moreover, while we think of terrorism as being both a political and irrational act (especially suicide terrorism), terrorism can also be thought of as a rational act conducted specifically because of the impact it will have - fear, confusion, submission and of course alerting parties to their will to fight for what they believe should happen.

Today, terrorism must be viewed within the context of the modern nation-state. Indeed, it was the rise of a bureaucratic state that could not be destroyed by the death of one leader that forced terrorists to widen their scope of targets in order to create a public atmosphere of anxiety and undermine confidence in government. This reality is at the heart of the ever more violent terrorism of the last 100 years. The overwhelming salience of a coherent definition of terrorism must also address the wider socio-economic issues that give rise to terrorism. All we have to do is look at both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide to understand that violence, including terrorism by the state, rarely stops further violence as long as underlying social, political and economic grievances are not addressed. Furthermore, definitions of terrorism must tread warily between restricting the freedoms of the individual with laws implemented to protect the state and democratic process. Maintaining the democratic process, which is the ultimate guarantor of individual liberties and human rights, must be uppermost in any definition of terrorism.

A single definition of terrorism then, cannot account for all possible uses of the term. In the context of Sri Lanka, a useful description of terrorism was given by President Chandrika Kumaratunga at the first Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture held in Delhi. Kumaratunga made the insightful observation that terrorism cannot be tackled without addressing its causes. "The tactics of terror and murder cannot...and should certainly not be tolerated by any state or government. The strictest action should be taken efficiently and expeditiously, against all movements and individuals participating in or condoning terrorism as a political strategy. But the causes that have generated such movements must be addressed." The President went on to say, "the rational political, social and economic aspirations of peoples which, when frustrated continuously, give rise to full blown terrorism of modern day must be sifted out of the process of terrorist actions and looked at separately." This is a definition that has not thus far been lucidly articulated by Kumaratunga herself in Sri Lanka. While one could argue that her 'War for Peace' strategy was one that tried to isolate terrorists while promoting constitutional reform, the failure of the strategy highlights an important facet of the Sri Lankan state - that dominant power structures rarely address the conflict with a commitment to find the underlying causes for terrorism.

By 12 November 2001 the scope of the definition of terrorism changed and, after the specially-called Justice and Home Affairs Council on 16 November, read:

"terrorist offences include the following list of intentional acts which, given their nature or their context, may seriously damage a country or international organisation. where committed with the aim of:
(i) seriously intimidating a population, or
(ii) unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or
(iii) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or international organisation"

The effect of the definition of "terrorism" agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels on 6 December is unclear. Many groups in civil society from across the EU strongly criticised the European Commission's proposal and the Council of the European Union's first draft position because they could clearly have embraced protests, anti-globalisation movements and trade unions.

Much of the debate and discussion on human rights focuses primarily on human rights concerns associated with the response of states to activities of nonstate actors. However, we must not ignore the impact of nonstate actors on human rights. As Kalliopi K. Koufa, the UN Special Rapporteur on Terrorism, states in her progress report on human rights and terrorism, “There is probably not a single human right exempt from the impact of terrorism.”

UK legislation

The UK Terrorism Act 2000 came into force in February 2001. It allows for the banning of organizations considered to be "terrorist" and prohibits membership of them. The Act also extends powers of detention and makes inciting or funding terrorism abroad criminal offences. Even that raises problems, aid agencies working in Southern Sudan are obliged to sign Memoranda of Understanding with the Sudanese People's Liberation Army to ensure that their aid gets through safely. This itself displays weakness in compatibility due to the people of Sudan having to suffer due to fear.

The terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania on 11th September 2001 resulted in several thousand deaths, including many British victims and others from 70 different countries. In response the Emergency Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill and the Extradition Bills were installed. It will thus allow for the indefinite detention without legal process but with the right to appeal of foreign nationals "suspected", on the basis of security and police reports, of being "a threat to national security" but who could not be returned because it would mean they could face torture or death. This is humane as it saves the individual from death and also enables government to prevent its state and citizens coming to harms way.

The ECHR (most of which is now embodied in UK law by means of the Human Rights Act) does allow derogation from some parts in times of "public emergency threatening the life of the nation" (which the Home Secretary is prepared to declare). The detainee could leave the country at any time if he could find a country willing to have him. These Bills risk causing confusion in people's minds between "asylum seeker" and "terrorist suspect" because they follow on closely from the Home Secretary's Statement of 29 October on changes to asylum procedures.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, as well as civil liberties groups, has been very critical of parts of the proposals, for instance the extension of terrorist activity to include those with "links" to terrorists. What is a link? Living in the same house? Travelling to work on the same commuter train? Some may be completely unaware that they are dealing with terrorists yet they will be held in scrutiny and may be have their privacy invaded or worse become lawfully charged for crimes they didn’t commit.

The Home Secretary mentioned various other measures which do not need new laws passed including giving police and customs officials the power to demand the removal of "facial covering or gloves". This produced some amusement but could be deeply upsetting for women who feel their dignity is impugned if they remove their veils. Which is infringing upon the rights of the individual.

In fact the wide range of other measures has led to comments about HMG seizing the opportunity to "tidy up" several matters which have been knocking around, such as an extension of the incitement law to cover religious as well as racial hatred. This could produce a prime example of a clash of human rights, between the right not to have one's religious beliefs offended and the right to free speech and "robust" argument. The provision against inciting religious hatred in Northern Ireland has not been judged to have been very successful.

Refugees and asylum seekers, especially those from countries viewed as breeding grounds for terrorists, are most at risk from over-caution in public protection. This is ironic, for as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees pointed out, refugees and asylum seekers are more likely to be escaping terrorism than perpetrating it. UNHCR is alarmed that emergency legislation may lead to people being excluded from the asylum seeking process simply on the grounds of their religion, ethnicity, national origin or political affiliation, without looking at the evidence relating to particular individuals. People may find themselves detained or deported for no other reason than their origins, or even have their refugee status revoked.

Anti-terrorism legislation was being drafted and produced long before September 11 2001 but the events of that day have given it a greater urgency at every level. Terrorism is probably the greatest danger to human rights one can think of but unwise reactions to it can themselves lead to human rights abuses. As well as demonstrating the perpetual tension between public protection (national security) and individual rights, this is in fact a classic example of deciding what should be done when human rights appear to clash. Terrorism is affects all rights drafted in the human rights act 1998 either through direct terrorists acts or indirectly from laws brought in against terrorism due to the fear raised by it. Terrorism and human rights can never be compatible as they are complete opposites, the fear invoked is a justified response and unfortunately to protect the state to the best of the governments power laws implemented will infringe in the human rights of others but the rights of the citizens will be more greatly preserved which is where the loyalty must lye.

Reference: