Re: Pushing too far.
"If terrorism isn't covered under the 'National Security' catch-all then WTF is?"
Presumably the problem is that anti-terror laws are now used so widely in many cases where there's no demonstrable national security threat. The legislation was originally aimed at defeating active terror plots against the clock so the bigger sentencing requirements reflect that imminent threat.
Nowadays if a schoolkid from an Islamic background viewed an ISIS vid on TikTok and the evidence is on his encrypted iPhone they want to be able to put him away for 5(*) years instead of 2 but it's very far from being 'in the interests of national security'. Indeed it may be counter to those interests by contributing to his radicalisation. It's a 'terrorist' offence by virtue of being a conviction under legislation that has the word terrorism in the title, not by being actual terrorism.
(*) 5 years is still nothing compared to the 15 he might get for the video offence so it's also proportionate, you see?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
