The British definition of terrorism makes no difference between good freedom fighter and bad terrorist. Except it does because to allows for prosecutorial discretion to make this distinction. I will imagine the CPS will be turning a blind eye to lots of social media posts. - ThreadSky

alangreene.bsky.social • 76 days ago

The British definition of terrorism makes no difference between good freedom fighter and bad terrorist.

Except it does because to allows for prosecutorial discretion to make this distinction.

I will imagine the CPS will be turning a blind eye to lots of social media posts.

Comments

alangreene.bsky.social•76 days ago

In April of this year, a man was convicted of a terrorist offence for sending money to his nephew in Syria who was fighting for the organisation now in control of Syria. https://news.met.police.uk/news/man-who-funded-terrorist-fighter-in-syria-sentenced-following-a-met-counter-terrorism-investigation-489694

emetcalfe.bsky.social•76 days ago

Except that if the successful freedom fighter or terrorist becomes the internationally recognized government of a state, they would fall outside the statutory definition

alangreene.bsky.social•76 days ago

Nothing in the UK definition of terrorism says that it doesn't apply to state actors. It’s policy rather than law that it doesn’t. In 2023, the gov explored proscribing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard but the IRTL cautioned against it.
https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/IRGC-Note-Jan-23-1.pdf

emetcalfe.bsky.social•76 days ago

Except that if the non-state actor becomes the government, then obviously its internal actions can't be terrorism, i.e. against itself.

alangreene.bsky.social•76 days ago

But under section 1((1)(b) it can still constitute terrorism if its actions are designed to 'intimidate the public or a section of the public'.

emetcalfe.bsky.social•76 days ago

The CPS could still prosecute, of course, since Al Qaeda remains proscribed and a number of terrorist offences are linked to the fact of proscription rather than the statutory definition. But if Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham becomes the government of Syria, it would become hard to sustain a prosecution.

emetcalfe.bsky.social•76 days ago

For the purpose of Syria at least, not elsewhere

emetcalfe.bsky.social•76 days ago

Section 1(4)(d) of the Terrorism Act 2000

alangreene.bsky.social•76 days ago

Section 1(4)(d) only refers to the target of terrorist acts; it does not say that state actors cannot themselves target the government of another state.

emetcalfe.bsky.social•76 days ago

And also, taking a purposive approach, hard to see how direct actions by states against other states would be dealt with under the TA

emetcalfe.bsky.social•76 days ago

Sure, but in this scenario we're only dealing with actions by rebels in Syris

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply