A comparison between the legal definition of terrorism and the social construction of terrorism in political and media discourse.

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Language plays an important role in framing government policy and informing legislation, and anextremely relevant instance of this involves definitions of terrorism, which can impact on howsociety defines and punishes criminal activity. The main aim of my PhD is to test the extent to whichthe legal definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000) frames Britishpolitical and media discourse. This follows Greene's (2017) assertion that the role the law plays inframing political debates has been overstated. A subsidiary aim is to test the extent to which'terrorism' and 'extremism' have been conflated, as claimed by Onursal and Kirkpatrick (2021), andwhat this might mean in relation to the definition of terrorism, the rule of law, and respect forhuman rights.Problem statement and research questionsIt is hypothesised that while political and media discourse is sometimes in accordance with the legaldefinition of terrorism, much is not, and that the label 'extremism' is frequently conflated with'terrorism'. Analysis supporting these hypotheses may reveal much about the political interests atplay and the potential for the definition of terrorism to be further widened. My analysis willilluminate how certain actions are reported in the media and the consequent public perceptions ofterrorism and extremism. It could also raise serious concerns surrounding the rule of law and humanrights. For example, if extremism' is conflated with 'terrorism', the use of counterterrorismmeasures in response to extremism could be normalised, even though extremist views do notnecessarily result in violent action.