Why the meaning of "terrorism" is constitutionally important

The meaning of "terrorism" has been much debated in Australia in the wake of two horrific stabbing attacks - one deemed terrorism and the other not. Is any act of violence that causes terror "terrorism", or does it require something else?
This video adds a constitutional perspective. We need to be careful about the definition of terrorism because of the powers that it triggers and, importantly, who can exercise those powers. There is a risk that we will shatter the distinctions between defence matters dealt with by the military and criminal matters dealt with by the police. This video explains the constitutional reasons why.

[@Joseph_Says77]

Very interesting! +1 subscriber

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Terrific. Thanks!

[@user-yw1rp4rj4u]

yes, totally agree.. I had this discussion with a few family members recently. given this definition, we are struggling to understand why the organisers of the pro Palestinian group are not charged under the antiterrorism act 2005. With the view that the organisers are inciting an indictable offence, namely, physically attacking Jewish people or property.

[@TheAbeKane]

Very insightful, thank you

[@johngross3506]

Very interesting, Anne. Next do the spending power!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Goodness - that might take a while! But I will add it to my growing list.

[@glenndotarcher]

Anne - great summary/analysis of the legal framework. However I think you missed a relevant precedent - being the Sydney Hilton Bombing in 1978, where a bomb in the garbage bin behind the Hilton went of just two hours prior to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting. Prime Minister Fraser called out the Defence Force following a request to the Governor General (pursuant to the pre-2000 section 51 of the Defence Act), which was allowed as “the GG was satisfied that because of terrorist activities and related violence in NSW, it was necessary to call out the Defence Force to protect the national and international interests of the Commonwealth.”

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, I know quite a lot about that one, as I managed to dig up the legal opinions provided to the GG, who was concerned about whether he had the relevant power. I might do a Clarion about it because it was quite interesting. In that case, however, they relied on the external affairs power, because there is a treaty about protecting visiting heads of state.

[@cesargodoy2920]

here in the US this is made a bit more complicated in some areas but also simpler with the FBI and National guard/State forces. So if a state needs military power they can use there own and if the feds need cops they have there own. and there's the Posse Comitatus Act which just directly states the Military cant do law enforcement . however there was a bit of a quarrel over the definition of insurrection recently So this raises a question, if theoretically God forbid Australia was invaded would the police be allowed to fight the invaders if they landed? also your use of domestic violence was Hilarious because I imagined tanks rolling up to arrest a wife/husband beater i know thats not what you meant but its a funny image!

[@ambitiousdentist6076]

causing shock and fear, isn't terrorism. A piece of wood falling from a car, could cause terrorism. there obviously needs to be a specific checklist which legally, the incident needs to rise too, for it to be classified and used with counter terrorism laws. currently, Politicians have used "terrorism" to refer to using youtube to post negative opinions or investigations into their conduct. We are in a wild time and we need foundational and clear legislation to ensure the country weathers the storm. Loved the video; however you will get more specific respondents if you put sydney or australia in the title, but you would get international responses if its just 'terrorism'.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

There is a real dilemma re titles - do you keep it short and snappy, or longer and more accurately descriptive, or do people stop looking after word three in a title? I'm afraid I'm inconsistent on this. But I do try to remember to specify that I'm talking about Australia when I set out the description.

[@ambitiousdentist6076]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 yeah, if your video is 'Sydney constitutional court" it will come up for a search of 'Australian law' as well as the exact title / proximity. counter intuitively though if you're just entitled it 'constitutional law', it will consider that just 'law' and you will be put into just the law category with little specificity. There is word association and simplification in the algorithm, so sometimes being expansive without using similes can really help. Make of that what you will. However the three word thing is true - sometimes put the location at the end? This is your journey, I love your content and Ill be following as long as you make content. Thank you.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@@ambitiousdentist6076 Thanks for the help. I should probably invest some more time in strategy and production quality, rather than just relying on content. One of these days I'll figure it all out.

[@mitch_mishyy]

If I didn't know better I'd think we share the same mind-you frequently cover issues I have thought about and considered, including this one! I happened across an ADF journal article on the topic of police and armed forces' roles and functions converging just the other day. (ADF Journal 2017 iss. 202, 37) One piece of feedback: when you mention additional readings (such as Sir Ninian's paper in this video, and your own articles in others), could you provide links and/or reference information?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes - good point. Sometimes it is difficult because the material is behind a pay-wall so I can't link to it. But this one is freely available (from (1984) 14 MULR 563) and you can find it here: www8.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1984/16.pdf. If anyone knows how to include hyperlinks in the description or comments, do let me know.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Ignore that last question re the hyperlink. While it doesn't appear on what I'm writing, I now see that it does appear on what you see - so problem solved.

[@watleythewizard2381]

I think the definition of terrorism needs to be radically rethought. As an instrument of ideological struggle against a govt, not as an individual menace. I dont think I expressed that well, but I think extending it to include gendered violence is a step in the wrong direction. Already the public interpretation of terrorism is so broad that any political act of defiance can be considered and will be considered by the media as “terrorism”. Any step outside the apparent bounds of polite discourse, including swearing and displays of anger frustration or discontent will be rolled up as terrorism. Even defiling a Christian nativity scene with a bag of cow manure could be a terrorist act, because I’ll have upset someone’s religious idiocy. and the last thing you’d really want is to have a broad definition including violence toward women as terrorism because, well, men aren’t terrorists, and we are not going to like being branded as such just because of our lack of choice in what we were born as. Same as you, ladies, we didn’t get a choice before birth either. We got what we got in the genetic lottery. Don’t blame us, and please don’t make us all out to be terrorists as well as all the other allegations we have to deal with nowadays.