Travel bans and changes to human rights laws won't stop terrorist attacks

The recent terrorist acts in Manchester, Brussels and London prompted British Prime Minister Theresa May to argue for a more punitive counter-terrorism approach. She mooted longer prison sentences, stronger deportation regulations, and stopping the freedom of movement of suspects.

The notion that recent events necessitate changes to legislation is in part based on the idea that they are somehow different from previous incidents. Yet many past incidents have either had unclear motivations (the “lone wolf”), or apocalyptic tendencies (Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo in the mid-1990s) or have used everyday items to perpetrate their crime (al-Qaeda and 9/11).

Changing tactics

Terrorism is a chameleon by its very nature. Developing new and inventive ways to shock and challenge political authorities is fundamental to the phenomenon. Air hijackings were used until Entebbe in Uganda in 1976, where counter-terrorism forces freed hostages aboard an Air France flight. Hostage taking was de rigueur for a while.

Fears about the potential of weapons of mass destruction attacks rose considerably after the sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway in 1995. As a “weapon of the weak” that seeks to spread fear, terrorism is necessarily adaptive.

What is consistent across the dynamism is an emphasis on challenging the politics of the day. Given this, ensuring a balance between security and liberty is central to any effective response. Thus the recent suggestions by May are unfortunate.

Human rights and protection both possible

For example, detaining more suspects for longer is illogical. Recent analyses show that Islamic State (IS) was created by a group of men who had been detained together in Camp Bucca after the 2003 war against Iraq. Seasoned military officers, ideologues and political minds were brought together, detained, mistreated and denied any future role in their country. The result? IS.

Altering aspects of the law that currently enshrine various human rights is also nonsensical. Keir Starmer, current Labour MP and previously director of public prosecutions (DPP) in the UK from 2008 to 2013, brings this to life.

In an article in The Guardian, he states that during his five years as DPP he saw many cases involving serious terrorist plots, but that human rights laws never prevented the Crown Prosecution Service from pursuing a prosecution, or the dedicated counter-terrorist teams from monitoring and apprehending suspects.
READ MORE

Connecting lone wolf killers to Islamic State magnifies the threat

While the magnitude of the attack on people enjoying a Saturday evening out in London on June 3 was not on the same scale as the carnage wrought on Manchester the previous month, terrorism and fear of terrorism is not just about the body count.

If what scared the public and motivated politicians most was simply an actuarial risk-assessment exercise, we would be far more afraid of road accidents – or domestic violence, which 432 people (mostly women) lost their lives to in the UK between April 2012 and March 2015.

Rather, what makes terrorism such a visceral and emotive phenomenon is that it is, essentially, political violence. Terrorism courts publicity. It is about the “propaganda of the deed” and using violence to communicate a political message.

The form of the Manchester attack was particularly striking given its use of explosives and the targeting of mostly young teenage girls – a particularly vulnerable section of society – at a concert. But such attacks have become rare in the UK due to a multitude of surveillance and security powers and the cooperation of local communities. Instead, it seems, “low-tech” attacks that use vehicles and knives are on the rise, exploiting the banality of the objects they employ as weapons to avoid arousing suspicion.

Yet these low-tech attacks also seek to send a message. Terrorist attacks are designed to communicate strength through the use of shock tactics.

Islamic State (IS) propaganda is replete with militaristic images, and seeks to recruit followers to join its supposedly massive, well-equipped army. Ironically, low tech attacks should fail to do this – and communicate the exact opposite. They are an express admission that the individual terrorists do not possess the technical capabilities or resources to carry out other, more sophisticated forms of attack. So why then are these low-tech attacks not conceptualised as a sign of weakness?
READ MORE

IS hates what Ariana Grande stands for - that's why we should celebrate her

The so-called Islamic State (IS) has claimed responsibility for the recent bombing of an Ariane Grande concert in Manchester. Whether it really was involved or not has yet to be verified. What is not in doubt, however, is that IS extremists hate everything the popstar represents. She is an independent young woman with a mind of her own and thousands of loyal followers keen to follow in her footsteps. To IS, Grande lives up to the tagline of her tour: she really is a “dangerous woman”.

Terrorism is a “communicative act” – its targets are not only those who died or were injured – but the wider audiences drawn in by its spectacular violence. Terrorists are frequently defined because they target non-military, non-state infrastructure or people. They do so to generate fear and panic.

Targeting is never accidental. Strategic choices are made to generate that chosen effect. In Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, market squares, queues for pay cheques, music shops, ice cream stores, beauty parlours, airports, Sufi shrines, schools and political rallies have all fallen victim to terrorist attacks. They were chosen because these are places where everyday living and politics happen.

In Paris, London, Madrid, Bali, Tunisia and now Manchester, everyday living and politics is in the cafes, on the bus, the train, the beach, in nightclubs, shopping malls and music venues. These everyday places are where “politics is at”. They are the ordinary mundane expressions of “togetherness” and worldliness that enable societies to function.

Music epitomises this. It has that ability to unite and connect with people regardless of faith, age, race or gender. There is “collective effervescence” (or karma of the crowd). Music literally brings people into sync.
READ MORE