How do you define terrorism?
How we choose to define terrorism says a lot about who we are as a country: the values that we share with other democracies, the ideological stance that we promote around the world and even which dictator's crimes we choose to turn a blind eye to.
The definition is also incredibly flexible and changes according to the times that we live in. For much of the 20th Century the main terrorist threat in the UK was the Irish Republican Army but nowadays it is Islamic radicalism that dominates news and headlines. Libya used to be ran by a single dictator but since the Arab Spring there are dozens of groups fighting for control, which groups are supposed to be the good guys in that situation?
The point is that while most people will have their own idea as to what constitutes terrorism there is not any definitive, shared view that stretches across society. That is why section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is so odd. The provision establishes the offence of funding terrorism but the mental element (also known as the mens rea) requires that the accused must know or have "reasonable cause" to suspect that the money will be used for the purposes of terrorism.
This represents a failure of the law. For such a broad and unclear definition to be associated with a criminal offence poses a threat to those accused of funding terrorism so that instead of being judged by of their own intentions their guilt is decided upon based on the fears and and assumptions of a society that often feels besieged.
Listen to the full episode below and in the meantime don't forget to check out my latest YouTube video on secret and half-secret trusts!
Episode link: http://uklawweekly.com/2018-uksc-36/
Subscribe on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/uk-law-weekly/id1137316725?mt=2