Last week, the Independent Commission on Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice published its final report. Established four years ago and packed with luminaries such as Sir Declan Morgan, a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and ex-Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve, its commissioners impress in terms of status. Although not, as the report makes painfully clear, in diversity of thought or opinion.
Far from offering a fresh pair of eyes on Britain’s counter-terrorism laws, the commission’s report will instead have the Blob, infused with all sorts of ‘progressive’ tendencies, purring with satisfaction. First of all, it is packed with euphemisms such as ‘so-called Islamic State’ rather than just Islamic State. It refuses to use the term Islamist terrorism, preferring instead ‘Al-Qaeda and ISIS-related terrorism’, so as not to offend hardline Muslims by suggesting Islamist terrorism has anything to do with Islam.
The worst part of the report isn’t even the politically correct jargon. Of greater concern is its recommendation to overhaul the much battered Prevent strategy (designed to stop people becoming terrorists) and establish ‘Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs’ and a ‘National Social Cohesion Strategy’ – both pure catnip to civil servants. Anything other than arresting, imprisoning and, where appropriate, deporting significant numbers of Islamists who want to do us harm.
This is far from the only terrible idea in the report. In their wisdom, the commissioners want to establish an independent Prevent commissioner to ‘require the production of information’ and ‘ensure adherence to human rights’. This is music to the Blob’s ears – it sings of process, report-writing and adherence to human-rights legislation.
If there is a core characteristic of the Blob, it is that it struggles with democracy and seeks to transfer power to anyone other than elected politicians. The commission’s report almost appears to be expressly motivated by the aim of securing fresh powers for experts outside of parliament. Consider this bureaucratic delight:
‘To secure comprehensive and transparent oversight, the mandate of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation should be expanded to cover all counter-terrorism powers (Recommendation 2) supported with additional capacity and powers (Recommendations 4, 5 and 6). These reforms would strengthen democratic accountability while sustaining the effectiveness of the UK’s counter-terrorism response.’
This is poorly written doublespeak. Democratic accountability is not strengthened by expanding the powers of extra-parliamentary officials or committees. Quite the reverse. It captures very well the Whitehall-knows-best mentality that we need to resolutely reject.
There are some parts of the commission’s 318 pages that are downright odd. Motivated by the current kerfuffle over the proscription of Palestine Action as a proscribed terrorist organisation, the report says that there were ‘unintended consequences’ for groups ‘pursuing legitimate political goals, including self-determination’. In what world are the overwhelmingly white, well-heeled retirees throwing themselves behind Palestine Action pursuing ‘self-determination’? Are they trying to liberate Chichester?
The commission also appears to be particularly unhappy that, since 2002, more than 220 citizenship deprivations have occurred. These could occur, for example, where a dual British-Pakistani national left the UK to join al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, or a British-Somali went off to fight for al-Shabaab. Those fighters could then lose their British passports. Here, we are warned of the dangers of ‘two-tier citizenship’ and that ‘equal citizenship is fundamental to social cohesion’. It seems bizarre to believe that social cohesion is aided by taking back those who left this country to fight for its enemies?
The report reaches peak Blob when it calls for the creation of a ‘special envoy’ to oversee the repatriation to the UK of an estimated 55 to 72 men, women and children who left to join the Islamic State. Would this special envoy end up being a human-rights lawyer, by any chance? The proposed programme they would lead would include those already deprived of British citizenship, who it seems we now need to take back. As if we didn’t have enough Islamists and jihadist sympathisers to contend with already.
The goal of repatriating terrorists leads to what must surely be the commission’s most absurd recommendation. ‘The Crown Prosecution Service should prosecute those who actively supported terrorism, while allowing for mitigating factors and alternatives to detention in sentencing.’ How could someone join, or support, an organisation as genocidal as Islamic State, and avoid prison?
It is unclear if home secretary Shabana Mahmood will give this report the time of day – in light of recent events, she probably has bigger fish to fry. But her officials will almost certainly be pouring over every recommendation.
That’s because it is almost identical to the Home Office’s ‘rapid analytical sprint’ review of counter-extremism policy, which emerged last year. The report wanted to prioritise ‘behaviours’ over ideologies, and saw complaints about two-tier policing as part of a ‘right-wing extremist narrative’. It was so bad that even government ministers backed away from the document. We can only hope this document shares the same obscure fate.
Such views as expressed by the Independent Commission on Counter Terrorism may well pass the dinner-table test at a gathering of human-rights lawyers. But ministers must realise that selling this to the public is a step too far. On this, and indeed on many issues, it is time to say no to the Blob.
Paul Stott is head of security and extremism at Policy Exchange. Follow him on Twitter: @MrPaulStott
