UK counter terrorism strategy – more of the same
The recommendations in an ‘independent’ commission’s report will only reinforce societal divisions
PAUL BIRCH
November has marked the publication of the final report by the Independent Commission on Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice, looking at the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism strategy. This grand syndicate, of which hardly anyone has ever heard, comprises highly respected individuals from Britain’s political, legal and law enforcement establishments.
The Commission’s terms of reference were, among other things, to review relevant UK counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices; to consider their impact on different groups and communities; and to make recommendations on changes in law, policy, and practice.
That all seems very noble. Terrorism, and all its accompanying misery, blighted the United Kingdom for 30 years during the course of the Northern Ireland Troubles and, after a brief interregnum in the early noughties, resumed with a vengeance through the rise of Islamist terrorism, which has been with us (and much of the West) ever since.
But when one looks at the ideological leanings of some of the personalities who make up the Commission, we can see that any of its reports are likely to be worthy of the wokest Civil Service staff network. And this one does not disappoint.
The Chair is Sir Declan Morgan, a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, who has previously criticised the British Government for stripping notorious ‘ISIS bride’ Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship.
We also have Dominic Grieve KC, who spent many years behaving, at the very least, in a questionable manner following the British popular vote to leave the European Union in 2016 and who now chairs the UK Government’s working group on a definition of Islamophobia.
Sir Peter Fahy is a former Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police. He faced calls for his resignation in 2013 after the Rochdale Safeguarding Children Board highlighted police failings in the investigations into Pakistani-heritage grooming gangs over several years. Astonishingly, Fahy said in the wake of this censure: “We have to remember that in most of those cases, the girls themselves did not regard themselves as victims and were not willing to make complaints and that is still the situation now.”
And how could we leave out Baroness Sayeeda Warsi? The nominally Conservative baroness has made a career out of discovering ‘Islamophobia’ under every rock. Yet despite the country being a supposed anti-Muslim hellhole, she has managed to become a very well remunerated peer of the realm.
Afirst glance at the report reveals it to be written in the depressingly familiar jargon of officialdom, with its 319 pages filled with incomprehensible, progressive word salads. Its recommendations are couched in vague, often obfuscatory terms, but they are, nonetheless, disturbing when one digs into them. “Investment in social cohesion” is mentioned, the report stating that “failures upstream create vulnerabilities that can be exploited by those seeking to divide communities or justify violence.” Okay.
No one can argue that more money needs to be spent in working-class communities, but on what, specifically? And who is seeking to divide communities? This is answered a little further on, with mention of “groups that promote extremism or political violence [who] frequently use social exclusion, racism, and rights violations to legitimise their narratives and recruit support.” This is the language of the Left, and it’s clear they’re not referring to Islamists.
The report’s most disquieting section, however, and the one which evidences the Commission’s ignorance of the reality on the ground, is concerned with the government’s Prevent Strategy. This aims to stop people from becoming radicalised and being drawn into terrorism in the first place, and it is easily the most controversial aspect of UK counter-terrorism policy—not least because of notorious failures in averting people from going on to commit heinous crimes.
The Commission recommends developing a “new multi-agency safeguarding model” that will “address diverse drivers of violence.” Something like this has existed for as long as Prevent has existed and has failed on many occasions in its core aim of preventing terrorist violence. This recommendation is so meaningless as to render it pointless.
Investment in social cohesion gets another mention as a cornerstone of the long-term prevention of terrorism. But there is no discussion on what is primarily behind this lack of cohesion—the deliberate choice of some Muslim communities to segregate themselves from wider society. The continued promotion of multiculturalism long after it was known to have failed has contributed to social division and inter-communal tensions, with some cultures being celebrated while others are ignored or condemned.
This has led to a degree of exceptionalism by some in Muslim communities, something which I noticed whilst working in the police. Senior leaders in many agencies and public bodies are too fearful of falling foul of self-appointed ‘community leaders’ to drive their ideas forward, despite these leaders being nothing but grifters in many cases. And so the parallel communities remain parallel. Assimilation does not get a mention in the Commission’s report.
The report does refer to public disturbances and the need to prevent them in the future. It makes much of the riots which followed the Southport atrocity in July 2024 but does so without discussing what provoked them—the brutal murder of three little girls and the attempted murder of several others. It’s as if the riots occurred in isolation and that mobs of white working-class people are perennially itching to attack mosques.
Indeed, the entire report is seen through the lens of Muslim sensibilities. It cites research by the Home Office Research Information and Communications Unit (RICU) on how messages are received by “community audiences.” RICU cautioned against the use of “Islamic,” “Islamist,” and “Muslim extremism,” as they didn’t want to imply that terrorism was the fault of Muslims or Islam. Currently, the UK’s domestic security service, MI5, estimates that three-quarters of its entire workload relates to Islamist extremism.
The report contrasts such terminology with the uses of the terms “Buddhism,” “Hinduism,” or “Judaism,” which only refer to the religions and are not used as a way to distinguish the religion from political violence. Maybe that’s because the West isn’t subject to Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish-related terrorism? Of course, most Muslims do not embark on a road to violence or extremism, but those who do cite their faith as a central tenet of their motivation. If the Commission won’t even use the appropriate terminology for fear of upsetting people, how are we expected to take any of its conclusions seriously?
The recommendations in this report could find favour among the ever-increasing army of advocates and human rights lawyers, but to counter-terrorism practitioners and the public, they would do nothing but embed the deep divisions in British society—divisions which the report was intended to heal. The Independent Commission on Counter-Terrorism is a part of the problem, not the solution.
*
Paul Birch is a former police officer and counter-terrorism specialist. You can read his Substack here.
This article (UK Counter-Terrorism Strategy: More of the Same) was created and published by The European Conservative and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Paul Birch
Leave a Reply