Human rights under anti-terrorism laws: can restriction of civil liberties for the sake of public safety be justified or is this approach unacceptable?
- Julia Anna Joseph
- June 21, 2020
Content :
Terrorism not a new found term or a new concept to anyone in the world. From the ending phase of the 20th century up until now, the world has seen increasing acts of brutal terrorist attacks around the globe, be it the 9/11 attacks at World Trade Centre, the Okalahoma city bombings, the 2002 Bali bombings, the 2003 Bombay bombings, the 2006 Malegaon bombings, the 2014 Peshawar school massacre to the very recent Easter bombings at Sri Lanka and suicide truck bombing in Somalia in 2019, just to name a few.
It is common to witness such unexpected attacks on countries in which case citizens are startled. Families run from pillar to post in search of shelter and food, parents try to save their children from the gunshots, the elderly grapple with their weak bodies to summon sufficient strength, abandoned children cry for help, and all hell breaks loose. In this scenario, it is also hard for the government to think on its feet, as it is equally under the shock of an unprecedented crisis. They are forced to quickly formulate counter terrorism legislations to drive away the dreaded forces. This legislation usually allows amendments to existing laws, under grounds of imminent threats and necessity. Thus, most governments adopt rules by which the people’s civil liberties are heavily restricted so as to take control of the situation in an easy and feasible manner. In past times of crisis, governments have harassed, investigated, interrogated and arrested people solely because of their race, religion, national origin, speech or political beliefs and ideologies. It is disappointing to see that the counter terrorism legislation often fails to strike a crucial balance between safety and liberty. This legislation is filled with measures that expand powers of intelligence agencies to infiltrate, wiretap, spy, conduct secret searches, and detain and deport immigrants . Thus, the anti-terrorism legislation imperils some of the very civil liberties that the war intends to protect. Suspension of civil liberties essentially means the curb on the fundamental rights of citizens. During this time period the mammoth power gets concentrated in the hands of the government. It may also amend the Constitution of a country in favour of the government’s want of undue power. Such laws may turn out to be a sharp shift from the fundamental rights of the ordinary citizens of a country. Despite the agony of having to go through brutal terrorist attacks, they are also made to feel like enemies of the state within their own homelands, deprived of fundamental rights and freedoms. Although it is widely practised in varying degrees in different countries of the world, the question still remains-is suspension of civil liberties during times of national struggle, an acceptable practice?
