Anti-Terrorist Legislation Vs. The Rule Of Law

2888 Words12 Pages
All laws are created to serve a purpose, these purposes may vary, some are formed to protect the personal rights and properties of citizens, other laws were enacted to serve a particular political interest. Within this paper i will attempt to present the differing viewpoints regarding why and how the anti-terrorist laws subvert the rule of law and how its procedures can be assumed to be a source of dysfunction in a society. The fundamental principles of laws are to protect and serve justice within a state. The entails equality and equity for everyone within a state regardless of their political beliefs, economic status, and ethnic background. In order to fully understand the nature of any law, it must be carefully questioned. This paper will try to achieve this through the critical race approach and the theorists associated with the approach. Furthermore, we will try to understand why these anti-terrorist laws are merely directed at the Muslim communities. It is important to provide arguments that are not one-sided, therefore I will conclude by noting the other side of the story, which I believe is, begins ignored. The anti-terrorist laws have emerged with new vigour in the 21st century. These new laws have brought with it significant changes within the society as well as a wide array of controversy concerning the issue of due process. The Canadian anti-terrorist legislation was immediately established after the 9-11 events. These laws however were created within a quick period of time giving the makers of the law limited time to be able to put enough thought and considerations (Mooney, 2005). These laws were simply created to target ‘terrorist’ and terrorist groups, to help the Canadian government meet the challenges posed by ‘terrorism’ (Mooney, 2005). The anti-terrorism legislation with specific amendments gives permission to the state to bypass its own laws

More about Anti-Terrorist Legislation Vs. The Rule Of Law

Open Document