Terrorism Act 2000

[Ken Brown]

Andrew Cormack wrote:

> I read the Act as having logical ANDs between the subsections of 1(1), so
> in an electronic case (which I'm taking as not involving firearms or
> explosives so section 3 doesn't apply), you have to have all three of
> "interference or serious disruption" and "influencing the government or the
> public" and "advancing a political, religious or ideological cause".


But surely 


>  >(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to
>  >intimidate the public or a
>  >section of the public, and
>  >
>  >(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political,
>  >religious or
>  >ideological cause.


Implies you have to (intimidate OR influence OR advance a cause) AND
(one of the subsections of (2))


>  >(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
>  >
>  >
>  >(a) involves serious violence against a person,
>  >
>  >(b) involves serious damage to property,
>  >
>  >(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the
>  >action,
>  >
>  >(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a
>  >section of the public, or
>  >
>  >(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an
>  >electronic system.


So interfering with an electronic system in order to advance a political
cause seems to me to be covered, or at least it could be argued that it
was covered.  Is defacing a website "terrorism"? Or distributing a
stupid word macro by email? It looks as if, had the "love bug" mail
message contain a political or religious slogan it could be defined as
terrorism by this standard.

I imagine it is just an oversight, but even though endangering your won
life can't be "terrorism" under this section, damaging your own property
could.

The bombing of Baghdad is terrorism under these definitions.

>  >(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which
>  >involves the use of firearms or
>  >explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

to me implies that someone who uses firearms or explosives to do
anything that "involves serious damage to property" could be done for
terrorism. But AINAL.  As far as I can see a man who in a fit of anger
or depression shot out the windows of his own house with a gun (which
has happened) or blew up his own car for the insurance (which I think
has happened) could be argued to be a terrorist.

I don't  like this sort of law at all because it makes actions that were
already crimes (since when in England has it *not* been a crime to
commit "serious violence against a person"?) into worse crimes because
of the motives. Which is a bad idea because you end up discussing mental
states in court instead of actions. Perhaps the lawyers here could
correct me but there is a popular idea that lots of men have got off
rape charges because they claimed they thought there was consent, when
if they had been accused of an "ordinary" violent crime they could have
been convicted. I also don't like this law because it seems to include
actions committed by friends of mine - say in connection with the
anti-Poll tax campaign, or  Greenham Common protests, or J18.

Ken Brown