YEAR 10 GLOBAL STUDIES TERRORISM

The term “terrorism” is commonly seen as “the unlawful use of - force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives”.

HISTORY OF TERRORISM Terrorism is not a new term. Terrorism has been used throughout human history and in every part of the world. The Spanish Inquisition used it to root out religious heretics and the French Revolution went through a period called the Reign of Terror. Leon Trotsky, a communist leader during the Russian Revolution, justified the use of terror by the Red Army as a necessary evil to promote the worldwide cause of workers and as a response to the military actions of counterrevolutionaries and Western powers.

HISTORY OF TERRORISM In the late twentieth century, terrorism became a tool of political groups in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The growth of international terrorism led to kidnappings, hijacking of airplanes, bombing of airplanes and buildings, and armed attacks on government and public facilities. Has anyone in this room remember or heard of the attacks on Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics, commonly known as “Black Saturday” in Munich? Or the Scottish Lockerbie airliner bombing? Or a person who came to be known as the Unabomber? Or the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1985 that killed 168 people and injured more than 500 others? What about a group called the I.R.A.?

OUTLAWING TERRORISM Nevertheless, defining and applying terrorism has been difficult to enact in law. As a result, twelve separate international conventions have been signed, each covering a specific type of criminal activity ­ seizure of airplanes, political assassination, the use of explosives & hostage-taking. But there has been little consensus amongst nations regarding terrorism. As the UN puts it, "the question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among States for decades.“ How does a definition of terrorism get applied? Who has the authority to judge what counts as "terrorism" and what doesn't? Is there a level playing field, internationally, for the persecution of terrorists?

ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION Despite this a few countries in the countries in the world have defined terrorism by law. One is Britain - the Terrorism Act 2000 is the largest piece of terrorist legislation in any member state. And now, Australia in 2005 has also created anti-terrorism legislation. The anti-terrorism laws that passed through the Commonwealth Parliament in 2005 have been seen as the most politically controversial in years. Whether it prevents a terrorist attack or is an attack on our human rights, it has been subject to rigorous debate. The legislation is wide-sweeping as it covers areas such as control orders, financing terrorist activities, advocating terrorism & preventive detention.

ARGUMENTS FOR ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION Arguments for the legislation include that the government needed to act swiftly and decisively to prevent the prospect of a terrorist act occurring on Australian soil, like the London bombings. Under the new legislation, therefore, people can be subject, for a period up to 12 months, to wear a tracking device or prevented from using the telephone/internet under the new control orders

ARGUMENTS FOR ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION The legislation was seen as necessary as terrorism represents the absolute demise of human rights and therefore appropriate steps by society, and generally this means government, need to be taken to protect all of its constituent members. Therefore any “seditious intention” or praising of a terrorist act will be dealt with. The new anti-terror laws were necessary as the advent of globalisation has attracted a global ill in terrorism. Terrorism is no longer geographically confined to Northern Ireland or Spain as the Bali Bombings showed. Therefore, a person on suspicion of engaging in terrorist activity can be detained for up to 14 days and those “recklessly” giving money to terrorist organisations can be jailed for life.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION The Australian Constitution does not guarantee freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom of thought, belief and opinion or freedom of arbitary arrest or detention. Many believe the new anti-terrorism legislation contradicts these fundamental principles. Recently Australia’s record on Human Rights has been questioned with the torture and killing of civilians, especially children, in Iraq, our mandatory detention of refugees, our unequal treatment of gay & lesbian members of our community and of mortality rates & domestic violence abuses against Aboriginal women. The UN and Amnesty International have attacked the introduction of the legislation for eroding human rights safeguards even more. As the head of Amnesty International states “governments are losing their moral compass, sacrificing the global values of human rights in a blind pursuit of principle”.