Reading the replies to some of the Twitter posts about this news story, there's a whole lot of people who are saying things like "they're not militia, they are terrorists/domestic terrorists, call them the right thing", and I can't figure out whether these people are liberals or conservatives. "Call them domestic terrorists" is a very common liberal response to news articles about mass shooters and things; but on the other hand, militias are a very conservative hobby, and I can just as easily see militia fans not wanting the term "militia" publicly associated with terrorism.
Although if you ask me, I think news articles should be using both. Every American self-labeled "militia" I've ever seen or read about has not been shy about admitting that they believe their primary mission is to overthrow the government someday because "Constipatution!"
I think there's a distinction between militias and terrorist groups, though particular militias may be terrorist organisations. There certainly is one in English law, and I think it's a useful distinction.
Here, organising private militias is illegal under the
Public Order Act 1937, originally introduced to deal with Oswald Moseley's Blackshirts:
If the members or adherents of any association of persons, whether incorporated or not, are—
(a)organised or trained or equipped for the purpose of enabling them to be employed in usurping the functions of the police or of the armed forces of the Crown; or
(b)organised and trained or organised and equipped either for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object, or in such manner as to arouse reasonable apprehension that they are organised and either trained or equipped for that purpose;
then any person who takes part in the control or management of the association, or in so organising or training as aforesaid any members or adherents thereof, shall be guilty of an offence under this section:
That's completely separate from the Home Secretary's power to ban terrorist organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000 on the grounds that they're... well, terrorist organisations -- that is, the group
• commits or participates in acts of terrorism;
• prepares for terrorism;
• promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism);
or
• is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
(see
explanatory document here).
So, yes, I'd say that a militia group is not necessarily a terrorist group -- the point about a militia isn't that it necessarily commits or promotes acts of terrorism but that it could be used to usurp the state's legal monopoly on the use of violence.
Certainly the existence of a militia is a form of passive intimidation -- it doesn't have to threaten violence, since the simple fact of its existence is in itself a threat -- but that, on its own, doesn't come anywhere near the criteria for a successful terrorism prosecution, at least not in the UK, and our constitutional right to freedom of assembly is considerably more qualified (rightly so, to my mind) than is yours.
