The Terrorism Act 2000 gives an incredibly loose definition of terrorism that allows nearly any action to be considered a terrorist threat. According to the law: .
In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where: .
.
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), .
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and .
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (Terrorism Act 2000).
While subsection 2 further defines the threats, (mostly anything related to acting, or even thinking about acting violently) it is section c of this part that is most worrisome. Does anyone act without considering their political, religious or ideological consciousness? The mores that guide an individual are exactly what are under scrutiny in this law. .
In Louis Althusser's "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" he states, "there is no ideology except by the subject and for the subjects." (Althusser, 697) He goes on to explain that ideology is the master and the individual the subject. So, basically everyone is guided by a certain ideology, be it religious, political, or anything else. According to this law, anything the state deems a subversive ideology can be investigated under the guise of terrorist activity. This has created many problems, especially for the Islamic community, which will be addressed later. The blatant ambiguity of this definition allows officials to make sudden judgments on individuals or actions that require little to no evidence for immediate consequences. These knee-jerk authoritarian actions are unnecessary invasions on the civil liberties of the public masked as safety precautions.
Part 3 of the Terrorism Act addresses the issue of "terrorist property" and what the government is to do with it. Now let us see what is defined as terrorist property: .