Human Rights Under Anti-Terrorism Laws: Can Restriction Of Civil Liberties For The Sake Of Public Safety Be Justified Or Is This Approach Unacceptable?
Pooja, BA.LL.B., Amity Law School, Noida
ABSTRACT
The question is the issue of how to shield the local area from psychological warfare while simultaneously regarding essential common freedoms. In legitimate terms, the test can be communicated just: how could hostile to psychological warfare laws be sanctioned those present phenomenal forces upon government and its offices while simultaneously not sabotaging the popularity-based opportunities we are looking to shield from illegal intimidation?
From multiple points of view, this makes these laws of a more noteworthy importance than the uncommon measures regularly found on the resolution book during World Wars I and II. Those contentions were of more unequivocal span and wartime legitimate measures stopped to work before long the contention finished. On the other hand, current enemy of psychological oppression laws have assumed a personality of perpetual quality, as the purported "battle on fear" has run for a more drawn-out period than those overall struggles joined and proceeds unabated with not a single probably end to be seen. Also, while a couple of against psychological oppression laws are the subject of "nightfall provisions" that could see them pass after a predefined timeframe, most have impact for an endless length. This focuses to the end that enemy of illegal intimidation laws might be adjusted in the coming years yet won't probably be repealed.
Keywords: Human Rights, Anti-Terrorism Laws, Unconstitutional, Counter Terrorism, Public Safety.
Comments