In response to terrorism as one of the major challenges of our time, developments in anti-terrorism law have led to laws that infringe on democratic rights. The author addresses two key questions in relation to such legislation, namely how the development of such laws is influenced by rights instruments, and whether such laws can be justified as a proportionate response to the terrorist threat. The examination focuses on the key rights of expression and association. It takes place within a comparative jurisprudence structure, considering the treatment of these rights in the UK, Canada, Australia and the USA. The assessment is undertaken in the context of the definition of terrorism and in particular reflects on the thought/act distinction, and whether the motive element of the definition leads to a normative response that is justified or is particularly severe to these democratic rights.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:LACETR/oai:collectionscanada.gc.ca:OTU.1807/18872 |
| Date | 15 February 2010 |
| Creators | Saunders, Lucy |
| Contributors | Roach, Kent |
| Source Sets | Library and Archives Canada ETDs Repository / Centre d'archives des thèses électroniques de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada |
| Language | en_ca |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds