The Guardian Editorial view on Theresa May’s plans on terror.
“Mrs May wants us to believe that we face a threat from doctrines that
do not espouse violence but somehow mutate into terror. Confusing extremism
with terrorism risks dividing us as a people when we need to be united.”
TM focuses on policing thoughts rather than acts, and countering ideology
rather than terrorism. Penalising people for holding unspoken beliefs would end
up with a legal minefield of dogma and piety. Will animal rights, ecological
defence or anti-arms-trade activists (who do not subscribe to violent belief
systems when criminal acts – sometimes amounting to terror – have been carried
out in their name) be banned too?
Non-violent extremism is difficult to define. Banning so-called
adherents from public positions would hinder, not help, the fight against
terrorism, when we need to exploit every possible avenue to prevent it. This
includes cooperation with the very people who might be best placed as
discouragers of terrorism: those who hold similar “extremist” beliefs but who
are non-violent and are opposed to the methods of violence. Mrs May’s plans
criminalise the eyes and ears you need to spot terror.
We need unity. The three recent terror attacks were immediately linked
to a “single evil ideology of Islamist extremism”; politicians should take care
in the language they use. We should not play into the hands of al-Qaida and
Islamic State and lump together murderers and peaceful Muslims who are simply
observant rather than violent. Crude Islamophobia risks pulling people apart
when they need to come together.
It seems we have learned nothing from our own history. In October 1974,
people were killed and injured within a week of a general election. A few
months later MPs voted for the Prevention of Terrorism Act, with emergency
“temporary” powers so draconian they have to be renewed yearly. These crisis
measures became permanent. Terrorism aims to scare us into changing the nature
of our democracy; sweeping new measures with alacrity in response to terrorist
acts is no way to proceed. Politicians should steer public sentiment on matters
of national security but with reasoned debate.
Theresa May’s talk about British values puts all Muslims under
suspicion by Myriam François
Mrs May’s recent statement following
the London Bridge attack, condemned “evil ideology of Islamist extremism” and
set out a familiar action plan. But terrorists’ stated motivations
focus on more tangible goals - a response to Britain’s “transgressions against
the lands of the Muslims”, a victory against “the crusaders” of the west, and a
response to airstrikes in Iraq; their primary motivation has always been to
create a pseudo “Islamic state” in the Middle East.
Without suggesting abandoning territorial fightback against Isis, we must recognise that the fate of European capitals is tied up with a very real war in the Middle East. British foreign policy, whether or not you
agree with it, impacts on British society, with the marginalised,
the angry, the alienated; those looking for a higher cause to bring meaning to
an often dead-end existence.
The intelligence services are clear that while they have thwarted many
attacks, they won’t be able to stop all of them. It is a false idea that the real problem
is a set of ideas pushed by the Muslim community. Intelligence analysts highlight that families – let alone “the community” – are
often the last to know, and when they have had suspicions, recent cases show that
families and mosques have approached the authorities. Communities work, and
will continue to work, with the police to stop those who wish to harm us all.
This relationship of trust and cooperation is made harder, not
easier, when the government casts a wide net of suspicion over the entire
Muslim community, suggesting that it is a suspect
group that needs to be re-educated with a predetermined set of ethics. The truth
is that British values are no superior to those of any other nation; the idea
is patronising to anyone of non-British origin. Improving social cohesion is a
laudable objective – but linking terrorism to integration produces a dangerous
confusion over the roots of the problem, which ultimately stigmatises and
alienates some of the poorest communities in this country.
Terrorists are not motivated by the faith of the 1.6 billion regular
folk walking this planet; Muslims aren’t immune to bombs and bullets and they experience a double penalty in such attacks: the same trauma as all other
citizens, plus the guilt cloud that hangs over them all thereafter.
"The government could be honest about the risks to domestic security of
foreign military interventions – risks the public may or may not wish to
accept. It can invest heavily in the security services working to keep the
country safe. This means more resources, but it also means not creating a
climate of suspicion around Muslims, who, like everyone else, are partners in
the common goal of preserving life – incidentally, the highest of values in
Islamic law. Creating dichotomies between British and Islamic values only feeds
a toxic narrative."
The aftermath of recent horrific events shows that people from all
faiths and none, with diverse value systems, can come together to
emphasise love, solidarity and unity. We don’t need lessons in British values;
but our politicians need to learn about not widening the
very divisions they believe to be the problem.
