Engagement takes an even hand

---

The modern terrorist threat is home-grown as well as international. Successive directors-general of the Security Service have warned that there may well be hundreds of individuals engaged in various ways with terrorist plots.

There are few areas of the country where there are no potential targets, particularly when they include parts of the critical national infrastructure, and the UK has its own experience of attacks on the transport system. In Spain, of course, there was an attack on Madrid’s commuter transport system in the run-up to a general election – a fact we might all want to ponder over the next few weeks, although I should stress that I have not heard any intelligence to support such worries.

This is no doubt what the Americans would call ‘a real and present danger’. However, the response to these threats has to be proportionate and measured. I believe that this balance is appropriately struck in the government’s CONTEST strategy.

The Prevent strand of the strategy – which aims to divert individuals from going down the path towards violent extremism and to reduce the threat from extreme radicalisers – is co-equal with the Pursue, Protect and Prepare strands.

These days, we have a much better idea than we once did of what brings about so-called radicalisation. It is a gradual process whereby a tiny proportion of individuals within a community are persuaded to see that the only response to the grievances that they perceive as being practised against their people is through terrorism. Some of those grievances are international: what is happening now in Iraq, or on the West Bank, or in Kashmir, or in Malaysia, or in Chechnya are all given their place as part of a single narrative; as are issues about the distribution of economic power around the world.

In this country, the role of our government in these issues, or its failure to help resolve them, becomes a factor – as does the wider sense of discrimination in jobs and wealth against Muslims (even if this is not something that directly affects the individuals concerned). And, of course, the measures that have had to be taken to combat terrorism create their own mythology of prejudice and discrimination.

Every inappropriate stop under the Terrorism Act, every time there is a fuss about control orders and the debates we had about how long terrorist suspects can be held without charge, will all feed – disproportionately – into that sense of grievance.

This is not to criticise the measures that have been taken to combat terrorism – I am a robust defender of their necessity. There is abundant evidence that such measures have to be taken, given the number of people who have already progressed along a path of radicalisation to a willingness to commit atrocities.

However, we must always keep these policies under review and make sure that we continue to do all we can to choke off the flow of young people being persuaded to follow that same path.

None of this has been helped by the breakdown of political consensus that began with the debates on the length of time terrorist suspects could be held in police custody before being charged, and continued with the rhetoric over control orders and other counter-terrorist powers.

For example, nobody regards control orders as being ideal. But any government has a paramount responsibility to protect the public. If there is information or intelligence that suggests that particular individuals present an extreme threat, it would be wrong to ignore it. And if that information cannot be used in court (perhaps because it puts at risk other people who have provided that information), then those who oppose measures like control orders have to explain what they would do instead.

All politicians have a role to play in ensuring that there is a sensible debate about these issues, and a genuine engagement with the public about what is being done to combat terrorism. It is important that people understand why particular measures are being taken, and are able to see that those measures are being used in a fair and proportionate way.

At the same time, the more the police service is seen to be there, providing support to all communities, the more willing people will be in those communities to support the police. It is only by that sort of engagement that we can hope to carry people with us, and render less credible a single narrative of victimisation against any particular community.