Tampering with Terminology: Can the "Terrorism" Label Avert Further Southport-Like Attacks?

Emerging Threats in the Wake of the Taylor Swift Tragedy

The heinous murder of three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class has sent shockwaves through society. Axel Rudakubana, the perpetrator of this atrocity, has been sentenced to life in prison, yet troubling questions remain.

While prosecutors established no affiliation with any specific ideology, they acknowledged Rudakubana's possession of an al-Qaeda training manual. Yet, inexplicably, this attack has not been classified as terrorism by law enforcement.

Prime Minister's Evolving Stance

In response to the Southport incident, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer proclaimed that "terrorism has changed." He emphasizes that Britain now faces a new threat posed by "loners, misfits, young men in their bedrooms, desperate for notoriety," driven by violent extremism rather than traditional political or religious affiliations.

However, as experts point out, such lone-actor violence has been prevalent for years. According to Barnaby Jameson KC, "This is not a new threat. We've seen a plethora of terrorist cases involving young males who've become self-radicalised in isolation online."

The Fluid Landscape of Counter-Terrorism

The UK's counter-terrorism system operates under the definition provided in the Terrorism Act 2000. This definition narrowly restricts terrorism to violence with a specific cause. However, in practice, various terror-related offenses are employed to prosecute individuals whose motives may not align with a defined cause.

Several recent cases illustrate the fluidity of the system. For example, two teenagers plotting a school massacre in 2018 were convicted of possession of terrorist manuals, despite lacking any clear extremist ideology.

Defining Motive Versus Motive for Notororiety

A key challenge lies in distinguishing between genuine extremist motives and a desire for notoriety or vengeance. In the case of the Westminster vehicle attack in 2018, prosecutors determined that the act and location were sufficient evidence of a terrorist purpose, despite a lack of extremist ideology.

Conversely, the 2020 double murder inspired by Satanism was not designated as terrorism, even though the killer's motive was clearly rooted in an extremist ideology.

The Liverpool Hospital Explosion

The Liverpool hospital explosion in 2021 further exemplifies the challenges in classifying incidents as terrorism. Initially declared a terrorist incident, the investigation ultimately concluded the bomber lacked extremist views and was likely driven by anger towards the British state.

MI5 and Police Focus

MI5 and the police prioritize terrorism as defined by law rather than a broader group of violent individuals. This emphasis stems from the significant time and resources required for state espionage and extreme right-wing investigations, including those involving sexual offenses and misogyny.

From Al-Qaeda to IS and Beyond

The challenge of intercepting lone attackers is nothing new. In the past, elaborate plots directed by groups like al-Qaeda were common. However, the emergence of IS shifted the focus to individuals inspired by online propaganda and instructions.

Extreme right-wing violence has followed a similar pattern, with lone actor attacks motivated by material accessed online.

Prevent Program Challenges

Counter-terror police have long raised concerns about the group of individuals with mixed, unclear, or unstable ideologies. In 2020, 51% of Prevent referrals involved individuals with such unclear ideologies.

While the government's figures for 2023/2024 indicate that 36% of Prevent referrals fall into this category, only 7% result in cases requiring intervention by a multi-agency panel.

Focus on Ideology May Overlook Genuine Threats

MI5's Director General, Ken McCallum, acknowledges that labels like "Islamist terrorism" or "extreme right wing" do not fully capture the range of beliefs and ideologies encountered today.

This diversity of beliefs results in a large group of individuals with genuine concerns not being adequately monitored or investigated.

New Definitions and Future Strategies

The government may consider broadening the definition of terrorism or creating new offenses to address the threat posed by non-terror offenders.

Jonathan Hall KC, the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, suggests that expanding the definition requires careful consideration to determine what violence to include and exclude.

Neil Basu, former head of counter-terror policing, advocates for a "Prevent for non-terrorists" program to address this emerging threat.

As the government assesses the path forward, the public awaits tangible actions to safeguard against further Southport-like tragedies.