March 13, 2025 - 6:00pm
To call something “terrorism” is no longer to merely describe a tactic, but instead issues the most severe form of moral condemnation. This was evident in last year’s announcement that the UK Government would treat misogyny as a form of extremist terrorism and consequently mobilise a raft of anti-terror resources to tackle it. Meanwhile, many called for the Southport murders perpetrated by Axel Rudakubana in July to be labelled as terrorism. Some on the Right wanted to pin them on Islamic terrorism, citing the fact that the killer had previously downloaded an al-Qaeda manual. On the other hand, those on the Left wanted to brand the stabbings as terrorism on the basis that the act had terrorised.
Occupying the latter category was Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who in January raised the possibility of changing terrorism law to encompass violence which was non-ideological but which “clearly intended to terrorise”, as with Rudakubana’s rampage. To state what should be obvious, neither ingredient alone makes the Southport murders an act of terror.
In response, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, has today advised that no such change in definition is necessary. Hall recommended that terror laws should not apply to non-ideological violence, saying that the “legal definition of terrorism is already wide and should not be changed any further”. He cited various practical examples of why this should be the case, including the risks of false positives and the massive strain on both resources and public expectations.
Another welcome aspect of Hall’s reasoning is that freedom of expression should be protected, and expanding the definition of terrorism would risk creating unacceptable restrictions. He provided the example of people who share conflict footage, as well as those who are fascinated by violence but never act upon it. These are not crimes, and the state must be careful about the difference between worrying activity and criminal activity. It should also be noted that the UK does not have the security infrastructure or knowledge basis on which to determine who among those obsessed with online gore would ever dream of enacting something similar in the real world.
It is true that we need a word to describe politically motivated violence as distinct from private, personal or even public violence of the non-ideological kind. Changing the definition to encompass things which plainly aren’t terrorism by the classical definition would eventually lead to the realisation that we need yet another new term for, well, terrorism.
Perhaps of greater consequence is Hall’s suggestion that the Government should consider a new offence, to respond to those planning mass casualty attacks even of the non-terroristic kind. This would grant police and security services powers similar to those under the Terrorism Act to intervene, and ensure potentially length prison sentences for those doing the planning.
In the case of Rudakubana, Prevent has been accused of failing to achieve something it was never meant to do: countering non-ideological violence. It is unclear what kind of interventions could have been made had Prevent taken on the case. There aren’t exactly “intervention providers” for people obsessed with genocide in the same way there are those equipped to challenge Islamist ideology. In reality, even with Prevent involvement, there is no guarantee his atrocity could have been averted — not least because the interventions aren’t compulsory. A new offence such as that proposed by the terrorism watchdog would allow the state to imprison someone should they reach the planning stage, rather than limply offering a few mentoring sessions to compete with constant consumption of extreme violence.
At the same time, it’s unclear that any such law could have stopped Rudakubana specifically, given he was not on authorities’ radar for plotting a mass killing. When he was deemed unsuitable for a counter-terrorism programme, the Southport killer should have been triaged to existing services, and at the very least he should have received more than just a slap on the wrist for the multiple occasions on which he was involved in violent altercations or found carrying weapons.
This kind of ongoing and inexplicable leniency towards the repeatedly violent few is perhaps the greatest danger to public safety. Hall’s proposed law gets to the heart of the matter: imprisonment serves not only as punishment or rehabilitation for the criminal, but also as protection for the law-abiding public from those few dangerous individuals who would do us harm, given half the chance.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWow,,, I guess ‘Real Politic’, or speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
I really like the way he is a mess of contradictions – and reading what he says is entirely a ‘pick and chose’ game as the situation is untenable, has been so for 4 years, is part of ‘The Great Game’ (the Victorian era name for the West Imperial proxy war against Imperial Russia). It is a huge disaster and one with no way out unless the rules change completely. He cannot tell the historical and present truth, but can drop bits of it here and there, other wise he can not have any hope for his future.
The issue is The West created this war by baiting Russia to attack with the offer of joining NATO. This has been understood to mean Russia must go to war against the USA Proxy Ukraine. He says this – This is the entire War in one Paragraph:
”OA: I don’t think so. For me, the price for Ukraine to get into Nato is a big war with Russia, as I said in 2019, openly, it was in our media. I think the price for the West to get Ukraine inside Nato is a big war with Russia and the collective West are not ready to pay this price. This is a problem. And for me it’s completely unrealistic for Ukraine to even hope to be a part of the European Union or Nato. It’s impossible in this real-life situation.”
SEE? He knew, as did Everyone, that the offer of NATO to Ukraine would be war with Russia. It was 100% certain – he says so, everyone knew it. So Biden did just that! Biden and Boris caused this war, not Putin. Biden forced the war, Putin just responded to the forced provocation.
Biden Wanted this war! Congress wanted it – entirely a corrupt game. $200,000,000,000 two hundred billion spent and that is half way…. USA corrupt politicians got their 10%, corrupt Ukrainians got their 10%, the Military Industrial Complex get their 30%, and for All it is a huge feeding tough that all are snout down into.
To the corrupt in the West and Ukraine blood smells like money – and that is their greatest love, so spill lots of it, and every one gets rich – or those that matter get rich anyway. A million who do not matter get dead and crippled, and an entire generation and country destroyed but you have to crack the egg to make the omelet. haha….
And then is asked:
What could the West gain from a partnership between Ukraine and the West? I mean industry. I mean agriculture.
Well, after the war they send in Blackrock and Vanguard and the world’s greatest finance vultures and pick those bones clean. The mission was to destroy Both Russia and Ukraine – then they get to feast on both carcasses – to devour the minerals, energy, and so on in the pretense of ”Rebuilding”
Then they ‘Social Engineer’ these mostly White, Orthodox Christian lands and bring in 50 Million African and Middle East and Asian men to colonize them as they do in USA and Europe and break then for ever so the Globalists may own them…..
It was a long game – but here is the thing:
They LOST the War. Now BRICS+ are loosened on the world, and the West, instead of conquering the world has lost it.
Good job Biden and Boris and USA and EU Neo-Cons. This time you really messed up – not just other countries, but your own too.
100% agreement.
What we need more of is common sense such as this.
One of the most interesting interviews on Unherd. Thank you.
Agree, although it took me about half an hour to get into it. The ending was a real eye opener and the only way forward for Ukraine to end this horrible war which took hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. Sadly I have my suspicion, that Boris was playing out his inner Churchill, when the Ukraine nearly reached a deal with Russia.
Thanks for bringing the interview.
Maybe Ukraine should be like an Eastern European Switzerland. It also has a multi-cultural/lingual population and is neutral. It seems like “translator” in the middle of Europe and isn’t a member of NATO or the EU.
It was hard to understand Mr.Arestovych and his NEW WORLD philosophy, but in the end I think, what he wanted was a neutral, multi-cultural/ lingual country between the East and the West, which seems pretty reasonable.
I still wonder what Boris did in those 3 days, when the conference failed. Hope he wasn’t talking Zelenskyy into this dreadful war, after the massacre in Bucha.
Boris let Zelensky know that if he bales on the misadventure with Russia, the CIA would kill him.
“The main problem of Ukraine is that some politicians starting in 1991 to transform Ukraine from a poly-cultural and poly-national state, into a more mono-ethnic and mono-cultural country, like most of European countries like Poland.”
&
“Ukrainian nationalism is the idea of less than 20% of Ukrainians.”
The first historically has meant either war, large scale ethnic cleasing, population swaps, or long term discrimination & assimilation. (e.g. Poland/Germany, Yugoslavia, Greece/Turkey and the Copts in Egypt) There aren’t peaceable ways to create a mono-ethnic population. But, if the cleansing only has the support of 20% of the population, odds are its going to mean a war that the nationalists lose.
Ukraine lost on day one. Putin didn’t declare war on Ukraine. He brought troops across the border to make a point that the Donbass must be liberated and the Azovs disbanded. And he wants a landbridge to Crimea. And he wants Ukraine out of NATO.
That was the time to negotiate. It has passed, and now that the US has abandoned Ukraine as they always do in these conflicts, Putin will chip away at the map. I don’t believe he wants all of Ukraine. Why would he? It’s a corrupt country full of homeless widows and amputees.
Zelensky will get his parachute compliments of the CIA, but Ukraine is a wasteland that will be picked to the bone by BlackRock.
Blimey – rarely have I read an interview that is so confusing. Ends up with
“FS: So your vision is for Ukraine to be neither part of Russia nor part of the EU or Nato, and to have a special status as a border-land country that contains many different peoples within in.
OA: Yes”
Anyone got a clue what that would mean in the real world?