UK fight against radicals must respect the law

HA Hellyer explains why the UK may not be responding effectively to the rise of ISIL by proposing changes to the counterterrorism law

An armed police officer stands outside the Houses of Parliament, in London. (Paul Hackett / Reuters)

Over the last few days, a pro-ISIL propagandist from the UK resurfaced on social media, complete with pictures of himself in fatigues and bearing arms. He had managed to get from the UK to Syria.

On Monday, Theresa May, the British home secretary, proposed changes to the UK’s counter-terrorism policies. Later in the week she spoke to parliament on the issue.

Now that two brothers have become the first Britons to be jailed upon their return to the UK for terrorism training in Syria, it is clear there is a problem and it needs to be faced. Is the UK government responding effectively to this problem, while paying adequate attention to civil liberties, a hallmark of the British system?

Earlier this year, the government suggested that British nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq for terrorist organisations such as ISIL would be prevented from returning home.

The suggestion was not forcefully made and eventually abandoned because it would be unlawful under British law to bar nationals from their own country. What the home secretary has tried to do instead is to restrict or limit the return of such nationals, saying that they would be placed on a list and excluded on a two-year basis (a period that can be renewed) unless they agree to submit to investigation upon arrival. Legally speaking, this is rather an odd policy. Placing such individuals on a list ought to be based on relevant evidence, and this should surely be enough to detain them upon arrival as well as to investigate them. In fact, there ought to be a legal requirement for all British nationals who travel to combat zones, unless part of British armed forces, to make themselves immediately available for debriefing upon their return home, if only to ensure they are not traumatised. It is puzzling that the home secretary has tried to get around this issue by temporary exclusion orders.

Moreover, such investigations, shouldn’t be considered as arrests. In the first instance, they should be seen as mere debriefing sessions, which could even be conducted at the airport and may or may not lead to an arrest. Some Britons might have travelled to Iraq and Syria with plans to get involved in humanitarian work. Others might have joined a militant group fighting against the Syrian regime. As the independent review of the government’s legislation noted, there may be many more sensible ways to deal with the problem.

It would set a dangerous precedent if the government put political decisions into statutory rights and utilised them at will. The home secretary already has several powers that are difficult to challenge through the courts. One example is stripping dual nationals of their British citizenship. If those individuals are abroad at the time, it becomes very difficult, in practical terms, to appeal against such a decision. Rather than address this flaw in its executive authority, the government has tried to extend its powers.

Ms May’s proposals also include measures that pertain to the banning of radical preachers from university campuses. These would allow ministers to direct universities and other organisations to bar such individuals. But the UK already restricts hate speech and incitement. They are deemed a criminal offence, for which one can be jailed. Surely it is sufficient to implement existing laws, why is it necessary to give ministers additional powers?

The UK undoubtedly faces a growing problem with radicalism that cannot be ignored. But its leaders must not rush to extend executive powers arbitrarily because these might be abused at some point down the line. Rather, they ought to ensure that extraordinary measures remain just that – extraordinary – instead of the norm.

When a country faces a terrorist threat, the typical knee- jerk response is to circumvent certain parts of the democratic process to prioritise stability. In reality, any stability based on less than a complete respect for human rights betrays the principles that its society is seeking to protect and uphold. In the long run, it can result in greater instability.

Dr HA Hellyer is an associate fellow of the Royal United Services Institute in London, and the Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC

Twitter: @hahellyer