Such a definition should be morally and politically neutral, and facilitate, rather than pre-empt, a well-focused moral debate. Indeed, historically, the state has been the greatest terrorist. One major account of the morality of terrorism is provided by consequentialism: terrorism, like everything else, should be judged solely by consequences.
When its rationally expected consequences are good on balance, it will be morally justified. As Leon Trotsky famously said, given a paramount end, the question of the means becomes one of expediency rather than principle.
Here, as elsewhere, consequentialism proves much too permissive with regard to questionable and even repugnant means. A clear alternative to consequentialism is an absolute prohibition of intentional killing and maiming of some ordinary citizens in order to terrorise and coerce others. This may be thought as obvious a moral truth as any. And it is ever more difficult to uphold the absolutist position, as the critic constructs ever more catastrophic scenarios that can be averted only by terrorism.
Should we insist on rights and justice even if the heavens fall? What of a middle-of-the-road view? Terrorism is wrong in itself, for it violates some of our most important rights and constitutes a grave injustice. Why does terrorism happen? What can I do now?
Learn how to better deal with bad world news. Talk through your feelings around terrorism on the ReachOut Forums.
If you're finding it really tough to process stuff around terrorism, think about getting some professional help. The fight had become global because the impact of terrorism was being felt everywhere.
The human values we share and work to uphold are derided by terrorists. The promotion of peace, equality, tolerance, and dignity for all are universal values that transcend our national differences. They are the glue that binds us together. United as nations and people of the world, we must come together to protect our common humanity. The global framework against terrorism The United Nations was engaged with the issue of terrorism long before that calamitous September morning ten years ago.
For decades, the Organization has brought the international community together to condemn terrorist acts and developed the international legal framework to enable states to fight the threat collectively. Sixteen international treaties have been negotiated at the United Nations and related forums that address issues as diverse as the hijacking of planes, the taking of hostages, the financing of terrorism, the marking of explosives, and the threat of nuclear terrorism.
Additionally, in response to deadly attacks in East Africa and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the Security Council, in , decided to impose sanctions on the Taliban and, later, on Al-Qaeda.
The Council created a list of individuals and entities associated with these organizations that are subject to a travel ban, assets freeze, and arms embargo. Shortly after 11 September , the Security Council took even more forthright action, based on its realization that terrorism would continue to pose a serious threat to international peace and security in the new millennium. It adopted a far-reaching resolution charting the way forward in the fight against terrorism.
That resolution requires all UN Member States, separately and collectively, to deny terrorists safe haven and financial support and to cooperate in bringing them to justice. Subsequent Security Council resolutions paid increasing attention to taking preventive measures noting, for example, that extremists were using the Internet to recruit people and incite terrorist acts. The Council began to consistently emphasize the need for counter-terrorism measures to be in line with states' international legal obligations, including human rights law.
It also considered it vital to ensure that non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, would not have access to weapons of mass destruction. Some provisions will come into force at the end of the period of two months after the passing of the Act. There is no one type of terrorist or terrorism. It originates from a variety of countries and terrorists have multiple ethnic, racial, religious and or political identities and have different views, aims and purposes.
Here are some examples:. The most common type of CPS terrorism case has been Syria-related since Daesh took over large areas of Syria and Iraq from onwards. Daesh tactics are geared to attract maximum publicity to amplify the spread of fear; they use violence against anyone who does not agree with their extreme views.
Read the Guidance in relation to the prosecution of offences relating to Daesh and the conflict in Syria, Iraq and Libya revised December Recent years have seen a rise in cases of far right extremism in the UK.
Far right extremists promote messages of hate-filled prejudice which can encourage radicalisation among people motivated by race hate. Groups including the now proscribed National Action have been under scrutiny for promoting offensive, anti-Islamic messages which run contrary to the values of respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. The group uses conventional techniques seeking to recruit new members in the UK to achieve mass civilian casualties.
In four would-be suicide bombers were been found guilty of conspiracy to murder after planning a coordinated attack designed to cause death and destruction on the London transport system. Those who assisted them were charged and convicted under s38B and received sentences of imprisonment ranging between 4 years 9 months and 13 years.
Call the UK Anti-Terrorism Hotline on if you've seen or heard something that you think could suggest terrorist activity. The CPS can apply for special measures so victims and witnesses in terror related cases can give their best evidence in court. Help us to improve our website; let us know what you think by taking our short survey. Contrast Switch to colour theme Switch to blue theme Switch to high visibility theme Switch to soft theme.
Search for Search for. Top menu Careers Contact. Examples include: serious violence against a person or damage to property, endangering a person's life other than that of the person committing the action , creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
Are terrorism cases dealt with differently from other cases? Terrorism or not? Substantive terrorism offences In recent years a number of offences and powers have been designed to counter the activities of terrorists.
0コメント