Shami Chakrabarti is the Director of Liberty, a human rights and civil liberties group based in the UK. You can find out more about her here

‘The word ‘terrorism’ is well established in personal, moral and political discourse. It is a pejorative term used to describe the use or threat of force rather than argument to achieve political change. It is an understandable and legitimate means of expressing revulsion at various atrocities around the world – atrocities against human beings – justified on the basis that the ends justify the means.

The application of the term can be all too subjective and contested. In particular, it is mostly used against individuals and groups who seek to influence states rather than states themselves, however oppressive. Hence the maxim “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

From my moral perspective, a ‘terrorist’ cannot be just anyone who takes up arms against a state. However, ‘terrorists’ would include state and non-state actors who lose sight of the human rights ethical framework by committing, for example, acts of torture or violence against civilian populations.

The criminal law must be more precise. In the UK, significant and exceptional consequences flow from the label ‘terrorism’ – limits on speech, association, privacy, due process and even the democratic process itself. The current definition of terrorism, catches threats or actions against people or property for political motivation anywhere in the world. This definition is dangerously broad and anathema to the very democracy which those who loathe ‘terrorism’ claim to cherish.’