Contemporary terrorism is linked to Islam, and thus the focus of counter terrorism work is on Muslim communities especially as far as the UK is concerned following the events of July 2005. The objective of this thesis is to analyse how, if at all terrorism and counter terrorism has affected British Muslims both according to law and according to their perceptions. The study focuses on a sample of British Kashmiri Muslims and seeks their perceptions of terrorism and the British counter terrorism policies and legislation. The study employs qualitative fieldwork techniques, alongside scholarly research on legislation and socio-legal literature. The findings contribute original analysis and fieldwork data to the academic literature and discussions on counter terrorism in general, and on the British Kashmiri Muslim community in particular. The thesis analyses the tensions between the government's counter terrorism agenda and the community's perception of those. This thesis highlights that some counter terrorism policies such as Prevent are effective in encouraging community co-operation, whilst other areas of active policing create anxiety and thus hinder community co-operation. In addition there is a clash of perceptions about what constitutes terrorism, especially regarding activities abroad, and it is this 'clash' that has to be addressed by those working with these communities. The research further identifies the potential vulnerability within this group and their social status within the society they live in. The findings emphasise that despite the anxieties related to the counter terrorism legislation, the interviewees accept national security requirements at home, but struggle to accept that foreign policy affairs in Kashmir should be affected by the United Kingdom's security laws.

This thesis assesses the UK Terrorism Act 2000’s stop and search and pre-charge detention powers against liberty and security rights. It proposes that criminalizing ‘terrorism’, and legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws, depends on moral and legal norms defining legitimate sovereign power. External norms of territorial sovereignty and non-intervention define and legitimize external defensive actions by the state to protect nation state security. Individual liberty and security rights, specifically pursuant to article 9, ICCPR and article 5 ECHR, have a special moral and legal status externally, but are not universally determinative of sovereign legitimacy. The thesis argues that these external norms accommodate contrasting paradigms of internal legitimacy, the ‘security state’ and the ‘liberal state’. Conceptually, sovereign legitimacy in the former is grounded on heteronymous collective or ideological values, grounding fundamental obligations legitimizing ‘balancing’ of individual liberty and security against security of those ultimate norms. The ‘balancing metaphor’ and exceptionalist theories are conceptually located within the security state paradigm. Conversely, political and individual autonomy (liberty and security of the person) circumscribe legitimacy of liberal state action, grounding fundamental obligations to prevent and punish harms, and to refrain from violating individual autonomy unless justified by those obligations. Liberal rule of law standards, including due process rights, are legitimized by the instrumental role of law as the primary source of justification in the liberal state. Evaluating the policy justifications, enactment, and scope of the TA provisions against those norms, the thesis concludes they contradict liberal norms, violate international norms and individual legal rights to liberty and security, and undermine the rule of law and due process rights. The pre-emptive counter-terrorism policy, balancing national security against individual liberty, and degradation of due process rights, belies a security state approach.