Terrorism is a handy go-to word to justify restrictive or violent state actions
April 2026
Calling an action or a group ‘terrorist’ has become a useful way for governments of all persuasions to justify violent, draconian or restrictive actions against people, causes or organisations they don’t like. The problem is that there are terrorists and they can attack societies which means governments are justified in taking action against them. But what we are witnessing in the Middle East in both Gaza and now south Lebanon and Beirut, are massive attacks against property and thousands of civilians, all justified because they are attacks against terrorists, in those cases Hamas and Hezbollah. The destruction and killing is justified because, it is claimed, those killed are either terrorists or being used as human shields by terrorists.
Terrorism Definition
The handy use of the word ‘terrorist’, or its cousin, ‘extremist’, is being used by UK governments to introduce legislation and increased police powers. The word needs very careful definition and we need to be on our guard against its use beyond true terrorism. Another problem is the retention of these regulations long after the risk has disappeared.
It is why the human rights group Liberty is asking for a new definition of terrorism. They claim that the one set out in the Terrorism Act 2000 is a one-size-fits-all definition and applies to hundreds of powers, offences and more. This a concerning escalation of how the Government treats protest groups and uses terrorism powers. Proscribing a direct-action protest group in this way potentially sets a new precedent for what we do and do not treat as terrorism they argue.
“We’re worried about the chilling effect this would have on the thousands of people who campaign for Palestine, and their ability to express themselves and take part in protests. Proscribing Palestine Action would mean that showing support for them in any way – for example, sharing a post on social media or wearing a logo – could carry a prison sentence.
The act defines terrorism as:
An act or threat of action that is taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation, or one designed to influence a government or intimidate some of the public, and involves either (i) serious violence against a person, (ii) serious damage to property, (iii) endangering a person’s life, (iv) creating a serious risk to the health and safety of some of the public or (v) seriously interfering with an electronic system.
Any cause, motivated action or threat that uses firearms or explosives is defined as terrorism even if it was not designed to influence a government or intimidate the public. One problem word is ‘influence’ which in most cases is benign. Based on the recommendations of the Bingham Centre’s Independent report of 2025 Liberty suggest changing ‘influence’ a government in the definition to ‘coerce, compel or subvert’ a government.
Serious damage to property’ should only be considered terrorism if it (i) creates a serious risk to life, or (ii) creates a serious risk to national security or the health and safety of some of the public, or (iii) uses arson, explosives, or firearms. They would remove the clause which states any act which uses explosives or firearms is terrorism even if it does not seek to influence a government or intimidate the public.
This they argue would enable current and future governments to uphold their duty to safeguard the public and national security, while protecting peoples’ rights and preventing the kind of overreach seen with Palestine Action. We have to be especially observant that the use of this legislation and the careless use of that word, does not become a cover for coercive actions by the police and courts against legitimate protest.
Amnesty in Salisbury & South Wiltshire 
Leave a comment