The draft law creates a new Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), consisting of members appointed by the

executive, that would permit the authorities to arrest people it designates as “terrorists” without a
judicial warrant and to detain them without charge for up to 24 days before they must be presented
before a judicial authority. Under existing law, terrorism suspects must be brought before a judge in
three days. Human Rights Watch believes that anyone taken into custody should appear before a
judge within 48 hours.

Here’s a fact-based opening for your stance against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020:

---

**Good [morning/afternoon/evening], distinguished judges, respected opponents, and esteemed

I stand before you to argue that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is not beneficial. While its aim is to
enhance national security, many provisions within the law have sparked significant global concerns
regarding their effects on human rights, freedom of expression, and the potential for abuse. Critics
argue that the vague definitions and broad powers granted by the law can lead to unjust treatment of
individuals and a chilling effect on dissenting voices. For instance, the United Nations Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed grave concerns over the act’s allowance for
extended detention without charges and its broad, ambiguous definitions of terrorism (UN, 2020).
These provisions can result in the unjust detention of innocent people, unequally affecting activists,
journalists, and ordinary citizens simply for expressing dissent.

History demonstrates the dangers of broad anti-terrorism laws: countries with similar laws have seen
increased targeting of marginalized groups and political critics. Amnesty International has
documented cases where governments used such powers to silence opposition, violating both the
right to free speech and the principles of democratic governance (Amnesty International, 2020).
These facts reveal that this law is more likely to compromise our freedoms than to enhance our
security, making it not only unbeneficial but actively harmful to our democratic foundations.

Here’s an introduction that emphasizes why the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is not beneficial:

---

**Good [morning/afternoon/evening], distinguished judges, respected opponents, and esteemed

Today, I stand firmly against the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, a law that, while
intended to protect us, ultimately does more harm than good. This act is not beneficial because it
compromises fundamental human rights, opens the door to misuse of power, and stifles essential
freedoms, weakening the very foundations of democracy it seeks to protect. By allowing for extended
detention without charges, warrantless arrests, and excessive surveillance, this law threatens to turn
ordinary citizens into potential suspects, creating a climate of fear and distrust.

Rather than strengthening our security, the Anti-Terrorism Act undermines the trust between
government and citizens and risks deepening divisions in society. In a world where terrorism is a
genuine threat, we need effective measures—measures that respect human rights and uphold justice.
However, this act fails to deliver on these values, and its costs outweigh its potential benefits. I urge
you to consider the impact of implementing a law that sacrifices democratic freedoms in the name of
security, leading us down a path that does more harm than good.

Here’s a strong, evidence-based case for why the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 should be abolished:

---
**1. Human Rights Violations Are Inherent in the Act**

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 allows for extended detention without charge and permits warrantless
arrests, which go against the principles of due process. This is a significant infringement on human
rights, with concrete examples showing the dangers of these types of powers. The United Nations and
Amnesty International have both condemned similar provisions in anti-terrorism laws worldwide,
noting that they often lead to arbitrary detention and abuses of power .

Concrete evidence from countries with similar laws, such as Egypt and Turkey, shows that broadly
defined anti-terrorism laws lead to high numbers of arbitrary arrests and prolonged detentions. In
these cases, people are held without charges, often under poor conditions, with no recourse to legal
aid. These situations reveal that once the government is given sweeping powers under vaguely
defined anti-terrorism laws, abuses inevitably occur. Abolishing the Anti-Terrorism Act would prevent
this same path in our own country.

---

**2. Broad and Vague Definitions Lead to Abuse and Silencing of Dissent**

The act’s overly broad definitions of “terrorism” leave room for subjective interpretation and allow
authorities to target not only violent extremists but also peaceful activists, journalists, and
government critics. According to Human Rights Watch, similar laws in countries like the Philippines
have resulted in the harassment, arrest, and prosecution of people who simply expressed dissent or
participated in protests, even when their actions posed no genuine threat to public safety .

The law’s vague language threatens to silence any form of opposition under the guise of national
security. Evidence from countries with broad anti-terrorism laws shows that these laws create a
chilling effect, where individuals, journalists, and civil society organizations fear reprisals if they speak
out. This has far-reaching consequences for freedom of speech, press freedom, and democratic
debate, which are all necessary for a thriving democracy.

---

**3. No Clear Evidence of Improved Security Outcomes**

Research indicates that countries that focus on rights-respecting and community-based counter-
terrorism measures see better security outcomes than those using repressive measures. For example,
in the United Kingdom, community-focused counter-terrorism strategies have had success in reducing
radicalization, especially among young people. In contrast, repressive anti-terrorism laws have shown
limited impact on reducing terrorist threats. Studies show that aggressive counter-terrorism laws
often alienate communities, which can increase the risk of radicalization rather than decreasing it .

There is no evidence that harsh anti-terrorism measures, like extended detentions and warrantless
arrests, provide better security. On the contrary, they are more likely to create resentment and
mistrust, which can lead to greater instability and, paradoxically, increase the risk of extremism.

---

**4. The Law Is Prone to Politicization and Used to Target Marginalized Groups**

Examples from other countries show that anti-terrorism laws with sweeping powers are often used
disproportionately against marginalized groups, activists, and political opponents. In Turkey, the
government has detained thousands of journalists, lawyers, and academics under anti-terrorism
charges, claiming they were a “threat to national security” merely for criticizing the government . This
pattern is likely to repeat wherever anti-terrorism laws lack strict oversight and accountability
measures.
In our context, the Anti-Terrorism Act opens the door to similar abuses, allowing authorities to silence
or intimidate certain groups and individuals under a broad security mandate. Evidence from countries
like Turkey and Egypt, where similar laws are abused, suggests that marginalized groups and human
rights advocates would be particularly vulnerable under such an act.

---

**5. The Act Undermines Democracy by Weakening Rule of Law and Accountability**

The act gives law enforcement agencies expanded powers with minimal oversight, undermining the
rule of law and democratic principles. In a democratic system, authorities should be accountable to
the public, and laws should protect citizens’ rights, not infringe upon them. The lack of transparency
and accountability in anti-terrorism laws makes it easy for authorities to operate without public
scrutiny, which weakens democratic structures and trust in the government.

When anti-terrorism laws allow for surveillance, detention, and arrests without checks and balances,
they erode trust in legal institutions. If citizens lose trust in the government’s ability to uphold justice
fairly, democracy itself is at risk. For these reasons, abolishing the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 would
help restore public trust, ensure accountability, and protect democratic integrity.

---

**Conclusion**

In conclusion, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 should be abolished because it violates human rights,
silences dissent, lacks evidence of effectiveness, disproportionately targets marginalized groups, and
undermines democratic governance. There is clear evidence from other countries that such laws lead
to significant abuses and do not enhance security. By abolishing this law, we can create a more
effective, fair, and rights-respecting approach to counter-terrorism, one that upholds justice and
protects the democratic values upon which our society is built.

Certainly! Here’s a citation that you could use to strengthen your debate stance against the Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2020, focusing on concerns raised by human rights organizations:

“Human rights groups, including Amnesty International, have warned that the Anti-Terrorism Act of
2020 in the Philippines grants the government excessive powers to label dissent as terrorism,
potentially allowing authorities to silence activists, journalists, and critics. This law permits
warrantless arrests and prolonged detention without charges, threatening basic freedoms and
increasing the risk of abuse.” *(NPR, “Why Rights Groups Worry About The Philippines' New Anti-
Terrorism Law,” July 21, 2020)*

This quote captures both the credible source (NPR) and the concrete concerns from human rights
organizations, supporting your argument that the act is overly broad and threatens fundamental
rights.

Prevent is a fundamental part of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy, known as CONTEST. Prevent
aims to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It does this by tackling the
ideological causes of terrorism, intervening early to support those susceptible to radicalisation, and
enabling people who have already engaged in terrorism to disengage and rehabilitate.

The Prevent Duty was introduced in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. This placed a
statutory duty on specified authorities, including health, education, police and local authorities, to
have “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.
Here are some **yes or no questions** that the affirmative side may find challenging to answer
definitively:

1. **Does the Anti-Terrorism Act provide clear definitions of what constitutes terrorism?**

2. **Is there evidence that similar laws in other countries have led to widespread abuse and violations
of human rights?**

3. **Do you believe that the broad powers granted by this Act could lead to the wrongful arrest of
innocent people?**

4. **Is it possible that the Act could be used to suppress legitimate dissent or peaceful protests?**

5. **Do you think that the public's trust in the government could be harmed by the implementation
of this law?**

6. **Have there been instances in other countries where anti-terrorism laws have inadvertently
increased radicalization?**

7. **Would you agree that community-based approaches to counter-terrorism might be more

8. **Do you believe that the law’s provisions for warrantless arrests are a potential violation of
individual rights?**

9. **Is there a possibility that the Act could negatively impact journalists and their ability to report
freely?**

10. **Do you think that the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act could create a culture of fear
among citizens?**

These questions are designed to prompt critical thinking and may lead to nuanced discussions about
the implications of the Anti-Terrorism Act.