Terrorism laws can erode rights

South Africa’s apartheid history – when many opponents of the government were branded as “terrorists” – means that any discussion now of what constitutes terrorism or a threat to national security is bound to be fraught.

And some interesting points have been raised in the debate before parliament on the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Amendment Bill.

AfriForum campaign officer Ernst van Zyl voiced his concerns that possible restrictions on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are not only illegal, but also unnecessary.

In explaining why the law is needed, he said the state has not identified why certain “highly invasive measures” are necessary to combat terrorism at a local level. He made the point that the problem doesn’t lie with the legislation or the regulatory environment, “but with the execution thereof by state organs which are underresourced, mismanaged, incompetent and inept”.

ALSO READ: ‘No longer crime, this is terrorism’: SA’s security cluster ‘dysfunctional’ – experts

Currently, terrorism is not something on the radar of South Africans, because we have been spared the gory incidents which have occurred elsewhere in the world at the hands of global terror groups. It is good to know that we are not targets and that the risk of local terror is, at the moment at least, minuscule.

However, Van Zyl was sobering with his remark that the country could become “an entry point and hub for terrorists and other agents operating outside of South Africa’s borders”. That could, in turn, make us either a target for reprisals, or a battlefield for wars which are not ours.

Many harsh crackdowns on free movement, thought and speech globally have been justified by the use of the “terrorism” bogeyman – but we must guard against our own securocrats pushing any policy where the end is seen to justify the means. Our rights must not be eroded.