Human Rights and Anti-Terrorsm Legislation Essay

Human Rights and Anti-Terrorsm Legislation - Essay ExampleThe primary Human Rights written document in the linked Kingdom is the Human Rights Act 1998. The Human Rights Act 1998 received royal coincide on November 9, 1998 and came into force on October 2, 2000. The objective of said Act was to harmonize the domestic jurisprudence of the United Kingdom with the European Convention on Human Rights and to provide for stricter human rights guarantees to be followed by wholly states. The provisions on free speech, freedom of assembly and due handle all impact heavy on the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom.On the other hand, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in November of 2001, a mere two months after the historic 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. Criticized by many for the undue haste in its passage, with concerns of political pressure being raised, the law in its original form contained passages th at human rights groups deemed to be offensive of established human rights principles. Amidst the outrage surrounding the 911 attacks, the Anti-Terror Law was heralded as a measure to fight the worldwide phenomenon of terrorism and to arrest its spread and development. Legal scholars and free speech advocates, however, unite in reprobate the law for trampling constitutionally-protected liberties. There is also the possibility that the law might give rise to or at least encourage racial profiling, particularly the provisions on proscription of terrorist organizations. It might only alienate minority groups and exacerbate the political violence by radicalizing moderate groups. Human rights advocates scored a advantage when the Law Lords ruled that a provision in the Law allowing the indefinite detention of foreign terrorist suspects was verso to human rights principles. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is affidavit i n any country which observes the rule of law. This decision was reached when nine detainees lodged their appeal before the Court. Indeed, due process is a fundamental principle of human rights. Criminal justice in any mature familiarity always involves a balance of two competing interests the need to protect the rights of the accused, and the need to combat crime and inculcate peace and order in society. Legally, a crime is any act or omission proscribed by the criminal law and thus punishable by the state through the criminal justice system (Davies, Croall and Tyrer, 2005) Legal systems in the civilized world - whether in civil or common law jurisdictions -- have, at least in theory, given primacy to the rights of the accused, understanding that ambiguity should be resolved in his or her favor.The anti-terror legislation of the United Kingdom unfortunately appears to have forgotten this notion. This comes as little surprise, certainly, given its beginnings that would garner man y a human rights advocate flinch. Post-911 anti-terror legislation in the UK is heavily laden with the baggage of American anti-war rhetoric which in turn smacks of prejudice, bigotry and an abject refusal to honor human rights prin