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.
SubscribeMembers of Parliament often referred to as Lawmakers unfortunately are impotent to affect the Judicial bureaucracy except by seeking to widen or narrow definitions in the hope that they might actually affect the sentences doled out. In the effort to try to establish consistency in sentencing Judges are hobbled with bureaucratic guidelines so in the nature of bureaucracy fine gradations of frightfulness need to spelt out with different words.
In fact all that is needed is for Judges to have discretion and exercise such discretion to punish more severely more revolting and atrocious forms of existing crimes. Planning any crime should attract punishment. Our Victorian ancestors didn’t need any reference to terrorism.Rudakubana would have been hung if he had not already been transported and thus prevented from committing his murders for some previous piece of violence.
Yes, the good old-fashioned concept of ‘pre-meditation’ has always played a key role in sentencing and is more important than whether an ideology can be invoked.
There are not many better examples of a society crumbling than when its elected leaders fiddle on about what to call various crimes vs. actually doing something to prevent them.
This piece, washed of all anti-white motivation, not linked to the epidemic of anti-white hate, not linked to the anti-white hate that masquerades as ‘CRT’ or ‘DEI,’ found in the pages of The Guardian or modern British school textbooks, to name a few—because demonising a group, inciting hate against it, leads to terrorism.
This was an act of terrorism, and not calling it terrorism is a further escalation of the very terrorism that led to it in the first place.
It wasn’t an act of terrorism because it served no ideological purpose, and didn’t try to advance any aims.
The IRA were terrorists because they attempted to bring about a united Ireland through the use of murder and intimidation. The Southport murderer had no such aims, he merely wanted to kill people.
His crime was despicable and he’ll rightly never be a free man, but I think it’s important to keep ideological attacks seperate from seemingly random ones
I’m shocked. Honestly.
Britain doesn’t need new laws, the ones they have are perfectly adequate.
What they do need is more prison spaces so dangerous criminals are off the streets.
There also needs to be much more attempts of rehabilitation in prison itself, rather than just locking somebody up for a bit then chucking them back out onto the streets.
You need both the carrot and stick
Once the new definitions are made, we can re-taxonomize real terrorism as ‘Terrorism Alpha,’ and all the new subsets with various different terms, like Terrorism b-flat minor, preliminary Terrorism, diet Terrorism, Terrorism Beta, and natural Terrorism.
The absurd push for legal redefinition as a placeholding solution for fundamentally insoluble and recurring human problems like interpersonal violence is kind of revealing about the sort of hubristic progressive legalistic culture we live in though.
The real terrorism here is that imposed on Britons by the British state and its mass immigration policies; specifically, the corrupt asylum system here. In short, we simply don’t want such families in the country with all the corresponding risk attached- we are being terrorised by such people.