The nature of the legislation (and indeed the people who act upon it) is such that they will use (and abuse) it if it allows them to carry out a purported duty without having to face difficulties or hindrances. Such is the nature of these draconian laws. They are asking to be abused, which is why redressing them is critical.

You said: “who knows what use such broad legislation will be used for in the future?”

We know it can stifle trade union and strike action by fire fighters: http://www.out-law.com/page-3054

Usayd:

I agree that the change in the definition is ONLY a first step in moving toward a sustainable and (as you say) wider solution, but there is cause for optimism. Section 44 has been temporarily repealed. That’s one result, which shows that such draconian and authoritarian powers can be challenged. What is there to say that the definition of terrorism or Schedule 7 or another power can’t be challenged and repealed in the same way?

Indeed, it won’t be easy or simple, (which my article may have alluded to a little too much), but the struggle should continue, and in a way that is feasible and based on the “one-step-at-a-time” paradigm.

Pressuring the government is the first step.

All best
R

The most worrying thing about the creation of all this anti-terror legislation is how the state can take advantage of such broad concepts, as you point out ‘the bar for what constitutes a ‘terrorist offence’ has been lowered so far as to render it virtually meaningless’.

In 2008 the UK used the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act to seize the assets of an Icelandic bank http://www.politics.co.uk/news/economy-and-finance/iceland-bank-freeze-used-anti-terror-laws–$1244102.htm

Who knows what use such broad legislation will be used for in the future?