Stephanie Richani writes:
For a bill
that aims to provide a strategy to successfully combat the growing threat of
terrorism in Britain, the government’s new Counter-terrorism and Security Bill
does not inspire much confidence.
Currently awaiting its third reading, home secretary
Theresa May’s legislative proposals include provisions for ‘temporary’
exclusion orders against British citizens suspected of terrorist activities, as
well as a crackdown on campus extremism.
Reading as much like a campaign bid for the
Tory leadership as an actual plan to stop terrorism, the proposals may serve a
useful political purpose but they do not offer a sustainable counter-terrorism
strategy.
The exclusion orders are a major cause for concern. They
are tantamount to sentencing individuals to exile as they risk rendering them
permanently stateless.
The repercussions for Britain are not insignificant –
legally, the UK risks falling foul of international law, likely ending up in
years-long and expensive court battles.
At the very least, it shifts judicial
responsibility for confirmed terrorists following their exclusion to other
states, making it harder to bring those individuals to trial later.
Secondly and more immediately, exclusion orders are
ineffective.
They could do more to radicalise the individuals they have made
stateless against a country they increasingly perceive to be the antithesis of
their identity and values.
It takes away an opportunity for people to be
reintegrated into their local communities and British society once they return,
making rehabilitation an even more difficult task.
The ripple effect of exclusion orders is also clear.
The
legislation is designed to reduce the potential radicalisation by ISIS of
British citizens.
Those most at risk of radicalisation are in the Muslim
community, and it stands that these orders will affect those individuals most.
Their communities, like most immigrant communities, are at once tightly knit
and far-reaching.
We are alienating entire swathes of Britain’s population
when we legally and physically exclude the individuals that form part of those
communities.
Trends in political rhetoric can isolate British Muslims
psychologically.
Exclusion orders simply exacerbate the underlying issues, risk
widening divides in the British population, and consequently undermine
counter-terrorism efforts.
Similarly, May’s ban on campus extremism takes away a
channel of communication between those at risk of being radicalised and the
state.
It seems like the start of what is perhaps the mainstreaming of
censorship of free speech.
As an element of a counter-terrorism strategy it also fails
to deliver in many ways.
The definition of an extremist speaker is not a
black-and-white judgment and the sheer number of organisations the proposal
targets leaves even more room for interpretation.
This alone reduces the
efficiency of such a proposal.
More importantly, by not providing a platform for such
discussions we risk driving them underground, leaving a greater gap between
at-risk individuals and the alternative.
If we are trying to understand why young men and women are
tempted to join ISIS and fight abroad, banning discussion simply takes away
that opportunity.
We are left unable to develop mechanisms to combat this and
preventing radicalisation becomes increasingly difficult.
This final push to secure a Conservative win before the
general election risks – just like their pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and
undermine the European Convention on Human Rights – watering down human rights
at little reward.
These measures will not stop the UK from being in danger of
further terrorist activity and may well do the opposite.
No comments:
Post a Comment