The Briefing Trump slams Bad Bunny's Super Bowl + Australia’s definition of terrorism
Feb 9, 2026
Kieran Hardy, Associate Professor in Criminology and Criminal Justice who studies terrorism and radicalisation, discusses why Australia’s terrorism definition needs rethinking. He traces its post‑9/11 origins. He explores intent versus motive in the law. He examines challenges from lone actors and online radicalisation and considers modest legal tweaks and their likely effects.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Legacy Definition From Post‑9/11 Era
- Australia's terrorism definition was adopted post-9/11 and largely mirrors UK law drawn from the Northern Ireland era.
- That inheritance shapes current legal framing and may not match today's diverse threat actors.
Intent Versus Motive In The Law
- The legal test mixes an intent requirement with a separate motive element tied to political, religious or ideological causes.
- That motive clause makes terrorism different from standard criminal intent and complicates prosecutions.
Lone Actors Complicate Motive Analysis
- Rising lone actors, mixed ideologies and silent online radicalisation blur whether motives exist or are discernible.
- That makes it harder to classify acts as terrorism and to predict who will escalate to violence.