In the project we intend to examine specific laws that have been developed in response to different terror attacks around the world. The terror attacks 9/11 led the danish government to develop the first anti-terror legislation, and on London in 2005 which led us to the second anti-terror legislation. Lastly the attack in Copenhagen which also led to an extension in the intelligence service capabilities, mainly through financial support. The goal for the analysis is to either confirm or deny whether or not basic ideals about freedom in a deliberative democracy are being ruptured with some of these laws. We intend to use Peter Høilunds theory regarding the sense of urgency and necessity that rises in the face of fear. With Ole Wævers theory we intend to look at how the discourse around terror works and what this means for legislation regarding terror through Wævers concept of securitization and security as an institution. Lastly we will use Georgio Agamben's theory about the state of emergency and how in the western world by extending the executive powers reach risk to incorporate this state as a way of governing. By giving a definition of an ideal form of democracy our analysis will be based on the selection of different paragraphs in the legislation that differs from this ideal. Our analysis shows that certain parts of our rights to freedom are facing neglect due to the anti-terror-legislation. This legislations does not contradict our rights but they do in fact contain the possibility of hurting them. The reason why terror has such an enormous impact on legislation can be explained from two different angles. Either the population seeks to increase the security because of fear, or the whole idea of terror as a threat that has been institutionalized through the discourse around terror that has been created. This means that how we respond to terrorism or threats has been securitized, and the population has given the government their accept to handle instantly when the threat is announced as such. Furthermore the conversation between different actors in society, which is so crucial for a deliberative democracy, risk being set aside due to necessity or urgency rather than from a rational assessment of the situation. In our analysis we reach the conclusion that even though democracy in its form has not been hurt, some of our rights to freedom have.
|Uddannelser||Basis - Samfundsvidenskabelig Bacheloruddannelse, (Bachelor uddannelse) Basis|
|Udgivelsesdato||20 dec. 2015|