Counter-terrorism measures between limiting extremism and rights of citizenship

Shaima Hefzy

European countries’ measures to develop anti-terrorism laws have escalated since the events of September 11, 2001, and with the increase in violence and extremism around the world, and that phenomenon – or some attempts to link it – to migrants, a question has been raised about the relevance of these laws to human rights and citizenship.

Anti-terrorism measures are measures or tools that countries put in place to counter the spread of extremism. They are the ones in which security and intelligence forces deal and monitor mobile phones, e-mail, and online transactions, along with bank account transactions and other investigation practices that have been practiced in many Western countries.

As a measure to protect human rights and privacy of data, the United Nations, as an international body, has called on states to pursue transparency within the framework of the global counter-terrorism strategy.

The most prominent risks that exist between counter-terrorism measures and citizenship rights relate to individuals of ethnic origin, as reported by an American study on the researcher, Russell Hardin in an article entitled “Civil Liberties in the Era of Collective Terrorism”, that individuals of ethnic origin who live in countries such as the United States has been subjected to violations of their civil liberties in a typical manner.

“We are entering a new era in which civil liberties are typical. Most American citizens who are likely to read this paper enjoy more protection for our civil liberties than other US citizens who can be easily categorized as Americans of Arab origin or, unfortunately, Americans of African origin,” according to Hardin.

Although this paper was published in 2003, the risks involved in counter-terrorism measures in Europe are still ongoing and this can be attributed to the increase in extremism and the emergence of the terrorist “ISIS” organization, which managed to attract terrorists from Western societies.

In an American study conducted by “Darren and Davis” and “Brian D.” Silver, from Michigan State University, the authors examined public opinion about infringing civil liberties for state security through telephone polls, and found that US citizens support the protection of civil liberties over personal security more abstractly than actual situations.

In response to a general question about giving up some civil liberties in order to curb terrorism in the United States, 55% supported protecting civil liberties.

In her thesis entitled “Unequal Citizenship: Being a Muslim and Canadian in the Post-September 11th Period,” Belgate speaks to Najer that citizenship rights for Canadian Muslims can be undermined because they cannot access loyalty and citizenship, which are important aspects.

It also indicates that Muslim men are viewed as barbaric and dangerous, and Muslim women are portrayed as negative and persecuted by their societies, and as a result of these prevailing perceptions, Canadian Muslim youth should invest a long time in establishing themselves as ideas, rational, educated and peaceful, the researcher said.

A study entitled “Paranoia … Citizenship, Civil Liberties and the Fight against Terrorism” by researcher Carlos A. Abarca at the University of Waterloo, Canada, published in 2014, indicates that the measures that must be studied to affect citizenship include the power to detain without charge for foreign citizens. And increase its periods.

The study raised questions about when to start distinguishing between what is subject to anti-terrorism standards and what is not? Like how do we know that tools such as data collection will take place within the framework of the national identity record, and will they actually be used to combat terrorist activities and not to target specific groups or even sell them to private companies?