They are not being charged because they protested, they’re being charged for breaking in and damaging a lot of military equipment. I think it’s a bit far to call them terrorists, but you can sort of see the government’s point, if you squint.
In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
the action falls within subsection (2),
the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][1] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial][2] or ideological cause.
Action falls within this subsection if it—
involves serious violence against a person,
involves serious damage to property,
endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
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)(2) is satisfied.
In this section—
“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
is wild: no danger to human life required, merely serious damage to property suffices!
Words in s. 1(1)(2) inserted (13.4.2006) by Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11), s. 34; S.I. 2006/1013, art. 2 ↩︎
Words in s. 1(1)(3) inserted (16.2.2009) by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28), ss. 75(1)(2)(a), 100(5) (with s. 101(2)); S.I. 2009/58, art. 2(a) ↩︎
The UK definition isn’t that wild - the ‘ra used to plant bombs and then phone it in. There’s still terror seeing a building explode - knowing the only reason there aren’t casualties is because the bombers, this time, called it in with 15 minutes on the fuse.
Acts dangerous to human life don’t require actual casualties: if people need to leave to avoid death or injury, then that’s an act dangerous to human life.
In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
the action falls within subsection (2),
the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][1] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public
Wow, so the very act of peaceful protest is now defined as ‘terrorism’ because the below can be very loosely interpreted in whatever way necessary:
creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public
creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public
I don’t know: it’s possible.
If legal definitions & case law (which I don’t know enough about) don’t settle their meaning, then they could mean anything.
A lawyer could clarify.
Plain old traffic jams and collisions block emergency vehicles all the time. Doesn’t seem to be a problem during these very normal things that happen all the time … but protestors block a road and suddenly it’s a huge problem.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the US Federal definition of terrorism
definition
Due to the element danger to human life, their definition wouldn’t fit.
However, the UK legal definition
definition
is wild: no danger to human life required, merely serious damage to property suffices!
Words in s. 1(1)(2) inserted (13.4.2006) by Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11), s. 34; S.I. 2006/1013, art. 2 ↩︎
Words in s. 1(1)(3) inserted (16.2.2009) by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28), ss. 75(1)(2)(a), 100(5) (with s. 101(2)); S.I. 2009/58, art. 2(a) ↩︎
The UK definition isn’t that wild - the ‘ra used to plant bombs and then phone it in. There’s still terror seeing a building explode - knowing the only reason there aren’t casualties is because the bombers, this time, called it in with 15 minutes on the fuse.
Acts dangerous to human life don’t require actual casualties: if people need to leave to avoid death or injury, then that’s an act dangerous to human life.
Wow, so the very act of peaceful protest is now defined as ‘terrorism’ because the below can be very loosely interpreted in whatever way necessary:
I don’t know: it’s possible. If legal definitions & case law (which I don’t know enough about) don’t settle their meaning, then they could mean anything. A lawyer could clarify.
For sure. e.g. Block the road, you block emergency vehicles / assault on emergency workers = terrorism.
https://www.bailii.org/
Plain old traffic jams and collisions block emergency vehicles all the time. Doesn’t seem to be a problem during these very normal things that happen all the time … but protestors block a road and suddenly it’s a huge problem.
I see: that technically could.