The surge in online violence makes declaring a terrorist incident more difficult than ever
|
Version 1 of 2. The Southport case shows how easily the seeds of extremism can now be sown – and the law needs find a way to keep up As yet, those with the closest knowledge of the Southport case cannot answer these questions: what cause was Axel Rudakubana trying to advance and who was he trying to influence when he unleashed his atrocity? As such, police cannot declare it a terrorist incident. The UK primarily combats the threat of terrorist violence through civilian law enforcement bodies governed by laws, not the military or paramilitaries, so there needs to be a legal definition of terrorism. The first article of the Terrorism Act 2000 defines it as “the use or threat of action where … the use or threat is designed to influence the government … or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause”. The declaration of a terrorist incident is made by the police, and their senior national coordinator for counter-terrorism, Vicki Evans, is understood to have spent considerable time assessing whether the Southport attack met the legal definition. Rudakubana’s repeated referrals to Prevent, coupled with the jihadist-style method of attack, led police to believe terrorism was a possibility. Behind the scenes, investigators say there is no sign of terrorism “yet”, signalling it may take time to find the evidence. The case and the debate it has triggered is a sign of how much the terrorist scene has changed. It used to be simpler. Al-Qaida, the first leaders of international violent jihadism, were centrally directed. Operatives needed permission to attack, and that effectively gave a command and control structure that could be either killed or captured. In the late 2000s, the model started to change, says one former senior counter-terrorism official speaking anonymously. The first worldwide Youtube Islamist extremist sensation, Anwar al-Awlaki, preached in English that followers should attack, however and whenever they could, with no need for approval of targets or plans. That laid the seeds for the methods adopted by Islamic State, who used the internet to spread propaganda at a fearsome rate. Once recruits were trained in camps in and around the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. Now the bedroom and a screen could be the training camp, and a complex plot can be replaced by grabbing a knife or hiring a vehicle. IS’s propaganda incited some hardliners; it also triggered some who were vulnerable. In 2021, Prevent, the official counter-radicalisation scheme, shared data with the Guardian showing that up to seven in 10 people referred to it may suffer from mental ill health or other vulnerabilities that could leave them prone to falling for propaganda from violent extremists. Prevent set up hubs specialising in mental health, because the NHS’s Cinderella services were not good enough. The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated two trends: it increased the number of young people entering the terrorism system, and the number of people with no or unclear ideology. On Tuesday, Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, told MPs: “There has been a threefold increase in under-18s investigated for involvement in terrorism in just three years.” Prevent’s client base is also increasingly young. The official figures for 2022-3 showed 32% – the highest proportion – were aged 15 to 20. Those aged 14 and under represented 31% of referrals, while 256 of referred cases were for those age 10 or under. Nineteen of those cases were deemed serious enough to go on to refer the children for specialist help. In terms of ideology, in 2022-23, the official report says: “Of the 6,809 referrals to Prevent where the type of concern is specified, 37% were for individuals with vulnerability present but no ideology or risk.” At 19%, referrals due to extreme rightwing concerns accounted for the second highest proportion, followed by referrals regarding conflicted ideology (18%), and Islamist ideology (11%). Cases in the category “vulnerability present but no ideology or risk” have increased from 25% in the year ending 31 March 2020 to 37% in the latest year. Last month, Evans warned of a “pick and mix of horror” being viewed online and said: “We are seeing search histories which contain violence, misogyny, gore, extreme pornography, racism, fascination with mass violence, school massacres, incel, and sometimes that’s coupled with terrorist material. It is a pick and mix of horror, horrific content.” The last government-backed review of Prevent by Sir William Shawcross, published in February 2023, was dogged by claims he was chosen by the Conservatives because he was a rightwing ideologue. Shawcross found Prevent’s focus should shift more towards Islamist terrorism instead of rightwing terrorism. He said: “Vulnerable people who do not necessarily pose a terrorism risk are being referred to Prevent to access other types of much-needed support. This is a serious misallocation of resources and risks diverting attention from the threat itself.” Among counter-terrorism officials there is bemusement. At the same time criticism has grown, they believe their actions have seen the threat decrease to “substantial”, the third highest level, from “severe”, the second highest level, where it had been for years. |