What Is Chapter 1 P5 Of The Counter-Terrorism And Security Act 2015

Chapter 3 – Chapter 1, Part 5, Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015

This Chapter will analyse the legal framework laid down in C1.P5, insofar as it concerns England, critiquing first the law, then its application and the resulting implications for freedom of expression. Chapter 2 has traced the development of the law, from the criminalization of terrorist speech to the criminalization of speech that ‘encourages’ terrorism or promotes ‘violent extremism’. C1.P5 is different to the offences analysed in the previous chapter as it pertains to terrorism less and extremism more. It thus, seems to be a new departure as it curtails speech that does not propagate or condone violence in the name of national security!

C1.P5 of the Counter-Terrorism

Open debate is the lifeblood of an institution of higher education. As the letter by 524 professors to the guardian stated, ‘one of the purposes of post-compulsory education is to foster critical thinking in staff, students and society more widely…the best response to acts of terror against UK civilians is to maintain and defend an open, democratic society in which discriminatory behaviour of any kind is effectively challenged.’ The real question that arises is, has the UK really reached a state of affairs where senior politicians have the power to influence what can and cannot be said at university in the absence of any crime being committed? If so, are we talking about Britain, with its so-called ‘values’ or North

The broadcasting ban was an infringement of the right to freedom of expression but it was a limited interference, as the words, if not the voices of the members of the listed organisations could still be heard. It has been argued that the real problem lay in the effect the ban had in further stifling debate over the Troubles. The encouragement offence was problematic as the ambiguity surrounding the definition of terrorism and ‘encouragement’, meant that it was very wide in scope and was applied subjectively. It restricted political speech considerably since it criminalized speech that ‘glorified’ acts of violence against any government, no matter how oppressive or racist. However, the latest incursion on free speech, in the form of C1.P5 really does constitute a new departure. This is because while the encouragement offence was aimed at reducing the threat from terrorism, C1.P5 seems directed at eliminating the threat from ‘extremism’, which has been defined as ‘opposition to fundamental British values’. This new law on extremism is where the government takes it too far. It seems that somewhere along the line, the government forgot that multiculturalism and tolerance of different opinions are also British values. Furthermore, C1.P5 seems to impose an institutionalised form of censorship! C1.P5 has turned hospitals, schools, universities, local