War on terror

UK Expert Discusses Preventing Terrorism, Limits of Deportation, and Radicalized Children

Security versus civil liberties. How to safeguard the population from the actions of terrorists, while at the same time preserving fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, movement and association? This is the age-old debate that lies at the heart of counter-terrorism (CT) in liberal democracies. The precise balance varies from country to country and across time but in the aftermath of attacks it is particularly likely to tip in favour of security, sometimes at the expense of certain liberties.

The UK is no stranger to terrorism, but – similar to many other countries around the world – it has been on a heightened state of alert since 2014 when ISIS declared its caliphate, and last year the UK was rocked by a string of successful attacks, resulting in 36 fatalities [1]. Within days of the attack on London Bridge and Borough Market in June 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May declared that “If human rights get in the way of [new measures to counter-terrorism], we will change those laws to make sure we can do them” [2]. But although strong powers may well be appropriate, the danger in adopting such a stance is that we end up sacrificing our way of life and playing into the terrorists’ hands. Indeed, a key part of terrorist strategy is to deliberately provoke a heavy-handed response that only adds fuel to the fire [3]. In striving to maintain balance, the British government relies –at least in part– on the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (IRTL).