Are Muslim Communities Affected By Counter Terrorism Legislation Criminology Essay

be Moslem Communities Affected By Counter consternationism Legislation Criminology testifyThis paper looks to criti squally evaluate whether Muslim communities constitute been affected by counter- act of terrorism law in the UK as part of a literary lay downs survey in serving to prep are for a much larger military personnel of work. This work consists of controling whether these community members devour been effectively radicalised give-up the ghosting to extremism either at heart the local community or in the UK at large. It is alike requisite to evaluate the way in which take cares in this regard that have been direct forward by academics have developed as a take of the laws that have been apply to date in the UK.Muslim Counter- act of terrorism Legislationcritically evaluate whether Muslin Communities have beenaffected by counter-terrorism legislationIn want to critically evaluate whether Muslim communities have been affected by counter-terrorism legislation in the fall in Kingdom (UK), it is necessary for this literature re get to consider whether these community members have been effectively radicalised leading to extremism either within the local community or in the association at large. Moreover, thither is overly a need to examine as to how trade protection agencies approaches are implemented and applied and consider new methods that will serve to adjoin upon professional person practice in relation to the legislation that has been enacted both in the UK and at the transnational level. In addition, it will alike be prize as to how this has led to claims from within Muslim communities that the tactics currently procedured by the constabulary are heavy handed and, as a result, counter-productive. Finally, this literature review will conclude with a summary of the key demonstrates derived from this countersign in relation to as to whether and how Muslim communities have been affected by counter-terrorism legislation enact ed both in the UK and internationally.With a view to assessing whether Muslim Communities have been affected by the introduction of counter-terrorism legislation, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 7/7 in the UK and 9/11 in the US New Terror discourse, the keep backion of waste extremism has become one of the most pregnant issues for policy makers throughout the western world and, for the purposes of this discussion, the UK. In what is recognisely a significantly heightened security system context, Muslim communities have become an enhanced focal point for the UK with a multi-layered, multi-agency approach (Home Office, 2008). Currently there are at to the lowest degree 2 million Muslims resident in the UK making the Islamic organized religion the largest outside of Christians with almost half actually having been born in the UK (Bunglawala, Halstead, Malik Spalek, 2004), just now the community is becoming much diverse with over 50 nationalities delineated and 70 languages spoken (Khan, 2004). However, Muslim communities constitute rough of the most deprive in the UK with almost a third of those able to work having no qualifications so that, as a result, many children experience high levels of take chances associated with child poverty (Bunglawala, Halstead, Malik Spalek, 2004) because adults are three times more potential to be unemployed than Christians (Yunas Samad Sen, 2007).Nevertheless, such policy developments are illustrative of the bare need to develop and support strategies based upon the maxim of counter-terrorism that communities defeat terrorism (Briggs, Fieschi Lownsbrough, 2006). But although counter-terrorism policies have been dominated by hard-sided strategies involving surveillance, the gathering of intelligence, the use of informants and the murder of anti-terror laws under the Pursue strand of the governments CONTEST (and CONTEST Two) counter-terrorism strategy (Her Majestys Government, 2006), the ascendency of a community centred notion of counter-terrorism has seen greater prominence given to an schedule based upon be able to Prevent terrorism (Home Office, 2008). In view of this shift towards inter consummation and take aimment with citizens, policy makers within the UK government have placed the police and other enforcement government at the forefront of this work regarding the need to look to follow a strategy based on the need to Pursue terrorists along with the need to Prevent terrorism whereby the police are working with Muslim communities in order to help encumber violent extremism (Lowe Innes, 2008).The implementation of New Terror discourses in the UK are founded upon the cognition and construction of Muslim minorities as universe comprised of communities at risk from violent extremism. In particular young Muslim men constitute a problem group and are recognised as beingness the predominate targets of anti-terrorist legislation and counter-terrorism surveillance pol icing in countries including the UK (Poynting Mason, 2006). With this in mind, the following issues were raised by participants in an effort to more effectively explain the negative jar of discourse and practice (a) Hard policing including increased stop and search, high indite raids, and the perception of an increase in aggressive attempts at recruiting informers to then lead to a greater sense of grievance amongst Muslims so they are perceive as suspect communities (b) suspicion is detrimental to both an exclusive and their familys keep since they may suffer job losses, family and community breakdowns, as well as mental health issues (c) individuals have argue their experience of anti-terror laws has reduced their penury to look to engage with state authorities with a view to better relations and (d) individuals feel pressurised to explain their Muslim identities in relation to the concept of Britishness (University of Birmingham/ humanistic discipline Humanities Resear ch Council, 2008).Under sections 62 and 63 of the Terrorism execution 2000 (along with section 17 of the Terrorism do work 2006) the UK appears to have take a firm stand universal jurisdiction over a whole array of terrorist offences signification anyone who commits any of these offences anywhere in the world so as to impact in some way upon the UK will fall within UK authorities jurisdiction (Sibbel, 2006-2007). In addition, under the Anti Terrorism, Crime Security Act 2001, a religiously aggravated element to crime has been introduced, which involves imposing high penalties upon offenders who are motivated by religious hatred. On this basis, Islamophobia has become a significant issue for individuals and even whole communities living in the UK with instances including (a) being verbally and physically abused (b) being threatened (c) being physically assaulted and (d) having homes or cars firebombed or attacked with acid. The problem is the reporting of actions that may be c onsidered equal to Islamophobia is rare since it is considered the norm rather than the exception for both individuals and whole communities because they do not want to create a fuss around their experiences (University of Birmingham/Arts Humanities Research Council, 2008).A survey by several Muslim groups found that since 9/11, 80% of Muslim respondents reported being subjected to some form of Islamophobia, whilst 68% felt they had been perceived and treated differently and 32% reported being subjected to discrimination (Forum Against Islam phobia Racism, Al-Khoei Foundation the Muslim College, 2004). more or less have also argued young Muslim men suffer disproportionately as the new folk devils of popular and media imagination (Alexander, 2000). More generally, however, it is also to be appreciated that a whole succession of opinion poll have shown many Muslims are uncomfortable with life in the UK (Pew world(a) Attitudes Project, 2006). In addition, there is an ongoing and c oncerted campaign against Islamism by a coalition of both left and right that have criticised the UK government for what they call a policy of appeasement. Martin Bright of the New Statesman claimed these organisations were engaged in a sophisticated strategy of implanting Islamist ideology among young Muslims in westbound Europe (Bright, 2007). But, although the reality is that Islamism is not inherently violent, these nuances are rarely admit and casual links are made between these groups and more special(prenominal) concerns about violent extremism.Further concerns have then arisen from the fact there are some substantial concerns the definition of terrorism under the name of the Terrorism Act 2000 (now Terrorism Act 2006) is too vague and overly tolerant. The main reason for this is that the Terrorism Act 2000 served to criminalise not entirely those activities that are generally accepted to be terrorist in personality, but also lawful gatherings and demonstrations amongs t other matters along with other forms of behaviour that, although unlawful, could not be considered terrorism (Submission to International Court of Justice ornament of eminent Jurists on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism Human Rights, 2006). Section 1(1) of the Act served to define terrorism as being based on the use or threat of action where (a) the action falls within subsection (2) (b) the use or threat is intentional to influence the government, an international organisation or to intimidate the public and (c) the use or threat is made to advancing a political, religious or ideological agenda. Under section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 it has then been recognised that action under this subsection involves (a) serious violence (b) serious prop damage (c) the endangerment of anothers life (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously disrupt an electronic system. The problem with the overly broad n ature of the anti-terror laws put in place is they serve to trigger executive powers that are very restrictive regarding the recognition of both individuals and communities human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (enacted domestically under the Human Rights Act 1998) often with reduced judicial oversight. Therefore, the use of such executive powers should be confined to those circumstances when such severe restrictions can truly be deemed necessary so there is a need for the laws to be narrowly drafted and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued protecting national security rather than ostracising whole communities (Submission to International Court of Justice Panel of Eminent Jurists on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism Human Rights, 2006).As has already been alluded to within the disconcert of international human rights law, any legal measures that serve to restrict the exercising of individual and community rights need to be both narrowly drafted and pr oportionate to what is being pursued. With this in mind, the get together Nations Human Rights committee now regularly criticises the remit of individual States efforts in this regard in view of the the broad setting of their anti-terror laws particularly those that have been enhanced since 2001 (Submission to International Court of Justice Panel of Eminent Jurists on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism Human Rights, 2006). By way of illustration, in 2005 the United Nations Human Rights Committee criticised what was understood by terrorism under Canadian law that includes very similar elements to the UK definition under section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for being unnecessarily broad. As a result, the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommended The State party should adopt a more precise definition of terrorist offences, so as to ensure that individuals will not be targeted on political, religious or ideological grounds, in connector with measures of prevention, investigation and detention (Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee Canada, 2005, at paragraph 12). In addition, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has also made some significant similar criticisms of what is understood by the concept of terrorism under Norse (Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee Norway, 2006, at paragraph 9), Icelandic (Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee Iceland, 2005, at paragraph 10), and Bahraini law (Conclusions recommendations of the Committee against Torture Bahrain, 2005, at paragraph 6(i)) amongst others so there is clearly a need for a more precise definition in the UK to avoid similar problems.To conclude, it is clear that there has been a significant impact upon Muslim communities as a result of the implementation of counter-terrorism legislation in the UK. Such a view is largely founded upon the way in which Muslims are perceived within our society leading to instances of Islamophobia so that suspicion f alls on a broad range of groups and individuals whose behaviour may on the surface appear dangerous or subversive. Clearly, there can be little doubt that it is incumbent upon government policy makers to look to act to maintain national security and prevent instances of terrorism. However, there is also a significant need to prevent the alienation of the Muslim community so that it is clearly important to engage in greater depth with these groups, understand the complexities of community politics, and come to a more nuanced understanding of political mobilisation now flourishing across large parts of Muslim communities in the UK. Therefore, it is arguable increased sensation of the rights of individual citizens and communities will, with some notable exceptions, offer the solution to radicalisation by providing vehicles for work the deeply entrenched problems associated with deprivation suffered by many Muslims and challenge radical rhetoric and build community resilience along with political integration.