Debate Speech
To our honorable moderator, to our respected fellow debaters, opponents, and
distinguished audience. Good morning!
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, warrant-less arrests, and excessive
surveillance, this law threatens to turn ordinary citizens into potential suspects,
creating a climate of fear and distrust.
Instead of making us safer, the Anti-Terrorism Act weakens the trust between the
government and the people, creating more division in our society. While terrorism
is a real threat, we need measures that protect us without violating human rights
and justice. This law doesn’t do that—in fact, its negative effects are greater than
any benefits it might bring.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 allows for extended detention without charge and
permits warrant-less 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 .
Evidence from countries like Egypt and Turkey shows that anti-terrorism laws
with broad definitions often lead to large numbers of people being unfairly
arrested and detained for long periods. Many of these people are held without
being officially charged, often in poor conditions, and they have limited or no
access to legal help. This pattern shows that when governments are given too
much power under unclear anti-terrorism laws, it almost always leads to abuse.
Getting rid of the Anti-Terrorism Act in our country would help us avoid these
same problems.
Anti-Terrorism Act’s overly broad definition of “terrorism” creates dangerous
potential for abuse. “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 warrant-
less arrests and prolonged detention without charges, threatening basic
freedoms and increasing the risk of abuse.” (NPR, 2020)
Research shows that counter-terrorism efforts that respect human rights and
engage communities lead to better security outcomes than harsh, repressive
measures. In the United Kingdom, for example, community-focused approaches
have successfully reduced radicalization, especially among young people.
Instead of alienating communities, these programs work with them to identify and
address early signs of radicalization, building trust and cooperation. The UK has
implemented several community-based counter-terrorism programs aimed at
reducing radicalization and increasing security. One of the most well-known
programs is Prevent, part of the government’s broader Counter-Terrorism
Strategy (CONTEST). According to Gov. Uk (2024) 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
radicalization, and enabling people who have already engaged in terrorism to
disengage and rehabilitate.
Studies show that this community-oriented strategy helps reduce the allure of
radical ideologies by offering positive alternatives and addressing the social and
personal factors that often contribute to radicalization. Countries that use strict
measures, like long detentions and arrests without warrants, often create more
problems than they solve. These methods can lead to increased mistrust and
tension between the government and communities. When people feel mistrusted
or targeted by the authorities, they may become isolated and more open to
extremist ideas, instead of being deterred from them.
This pattern has been observed in various studies, showing that repressive
approaches can backfire by pushing individuals toward radical groups, rather
than reducing the threat of extremism. For instance, the Institute for Strategic
Dialogue notes that when communities feel oppressed, they are less likely to
cooperate with authorities, which can worsen security issues. Similarly, a report
by Amnesty International highlights that fear and resentment towards the
government can make communities more vulnerable to radicalization.
In conclusion, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, despite its intended purpose of
enhancing public safety, has instead created a landscape fraught with risks to
civil liberties and societal trust. Its vague definitions and broad powers have the
potential for misuse, leading to the unjust labeling of peaceful individuals as
threats and fostering an atmosphere of fear that stifles free expression.
To truly combat terrorism, we must prioritize legislation that respects human
rights and promotes community engagement rather than laws that alienate and
silence citizens. A comprehensive approach to security should focus on
collaboration, understanding, and the protection of fundamental freedoms. By
abolishing or reforming this Act, we can work towards a safer society that values
both security and the rights of its people, ensuring that our response to threats
does not undermine the very principles we seek to protect.
Questions:
1. Do you believe that the law’s provisions for warrant-less arrests are a potential
violation of individual rights?
2. Do you think that the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act could create a
culture of fear among citizens?
3. Do you believe that the broad powers granted by this Act could lead to the
wrongful arrest of innocent people?
4. Can the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 guarantee that individuals falsely accused
of terrorism will not suffer prolonged detention or unjust punishment before their
innocence is proven?
5. Do you think that the lack of oversight mechanisms in the implementation of
this Act could result in abuses of power by law enforcement agencies?
