Anti-terrorism legislation is a paragon of vagueness

Although at gut feeling each of us has an idea of what terrorism is, the reality is that there is no strict and internationally agreed definition of terrorism, and definitely no legal standards on what could be treated as terrorism and what could not. It is effectively the government who labels certain crimes as threat to national security and allows applying anti-terrorism measures. Such crimes as hostage taking, bombing, and hijacking are very serious, but were previously subject to criminal justice. Since the anti-terrorism laws are vague, any of these crimes can be treated as terrorism. Not only these crimes (that are rather serious), but virtually any crimes. For instance, THE PATRIOT Act treats something as terrorism when it *appears to intend to* : (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping[[USA PATRIOT Act, 2001]]. Such things as intimidating a civilian population can mean virtually anything. In the very end it means that crimes that should be subject to criminal law will be treated as terrorism, which is something we strongly oppose (and the virtues of criminal justice system are outlined in our next point). In essence, anti-terrorism legislation violates the principle of legal certainty which states that legislation needs to be clear and precise, because otherwise it will be subject to a lot of interpretation and arbitrariness. Unfortunately, there are many examples where governments do tailor the definition of terrorism to suit their agendas. Take the example of "Mothers of Beslan", an organization of victims of Beslan terror act. It was accused of extremism after criticizing the Russian government for inadequate handling of extreme situation[[http://www.siberianlight.net/mothers-of-beslan-victims-charged-with-extremism/]]. Take the case of Walter Wolfgang, who was thrown out of a political meeting for shouting "nonsense" at the foreign policy in Iraq. Under Section 44 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000 (that allows police to stop and search anyone without any need to show why) he was detained. Take the case of Saly Harpod who was detained (and later prosecuted) for buying medicine for her family [[http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/37212.html/]]. These are only a few examples when the anti-terrorism laws are used for anything but to prevent actual terrorism. The threat of terror acts after 9/11 was promptly translated into lower standards for evidence. A man in diabetic coma, for instance, was shot by police officers just for looking suspicious [[http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article472087.ece]]. It is not only these examples that we find terrifying (you can find many more here [[http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/091004patriotact.htm]]), it is the overall tendency to restrict even more liberties under the clause of anti-terror that is particularly disturbing. Such things as glorification or public approval of terrorism acts, association with groups that may be considered as supporters of terrorist organizations are being outlawed. Anti-terrorist legislation, unfortunately, draws such a vague line that anything can be inferred as incitement of terrorism, for instance, even indirect encouragement when it "could reasonably be expected to infer what is being glorified" is in anti-terrorism legislation in the UK[[Section 1.3(b) of the UK Terrorism Act 2006.]]. Even a western democracy, Canada, in its Anti Terrorism Act prohibits "facilitation" of terrorist organizations regardless of whether they actually perform terror activities [[Canadian Anti Terrorism Act, Section 83.18 (1)]]. If laws are clearly defined, then law enforcing institutions can provide reasonable level of accountability, which is extremely important in forcing state to keep being benevolent to its citizens. The broad definition of terrorism gives very much power to the state and its enforcement agencies, leading to slippery slope when they start abusing their power in cases where ordinary criminal justice should be applied. We see this as very alarming.