What is Terrorism?

Ben Wildsmith

This week’s sentencing of four Palestine Action activists sets the scene for a wider scenario, in which the definition of ‘terrorism’ will come under sustained scrutiny. The ‘Filton Four’, who were convicted of offences arising from direct action at the premises of Elbit Systems UK, an Israeli arms manufacturer near Bristol. 

The sentences they received were enhanced after Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson ruled that the offences were aggravated by a ‘terrorist connection’ under section 69 of the 2020 Sentencing Act. As well as increasing the length of sentence, this ruling means that the four will be subject to ongoing censure and restrictions, including disqualification from early release, extended licence periods, and requirements to register with the police and provide details of computers and mobile phones. 

Attention has focused on the actions of Samuel Corner, who was convicted of GBH without intent for striking a female police officer with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. For this and criminal damage, Corner received a combined sentence of 7 years and 8 months. His co-defendants, Charlotte Head (5 years), Leona Kamlo (5 years), and Fatema Rajwani (4 years & 8 months) were convicted of criminal damage only. One can surmise from this that the greater weight of the sentences was apportioned to the criminal damage charges, with the attack on Sgt Kate Evans only attracting an enhancement of less than three years in extra time. 

The inevitable appeal of these sentences will be interesting. The effect of the judge’s ruling was that the defendants were convicted of different crimes from those for which they were sentenced. So, controversy around this case will continue but the wider context around it is set to be yet more inflammatory. 

Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation after the commission of these offences, so the status of the organisation was not, or ought not to have been, a factor in the trial. That proscription, however, will be back in the news tomorrow when the Court of Appeal announces its ruling on the government’s challenge to the High Court’s assertion that proscription was unjustified. Over 1600 protestors are currently awaiting trial on charges of supporting terrorism, mostly for holding up pieces of paper reading ‘I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action’ at demonstrations against the proscription. Because of the far-reaching effects of a terrorism conviction on employment prospects and travel, a disproportionate number of these defendants are retirees who felt that they could absorb the inconvenience more easily than working-age people. 

If the Court of Appeal rules in favour of the government, there will need to be over 1600 trials of mainly elderly, law-abiding people. The potential for enormous protests against this spectacle is obvious. Even in the fevered imaginations of the most enthusiastic authoritarians amongst us, it’s hard to picture these defendants in the role the government is seeking to cast them. A vicar holding a piece of paper is not what most of us associate with the term ‘terrorist’. 

Then again, neither is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. ‘Tommy Robinson’ was detained this morning by officers at Heathrow Airport Counter-Terrorism Border Security Act 2019. His mobile phones were confiscated. Very many people, me included, find Yaxley-Lennon’s role in UK politics to be repugnant and contrary to the public good. Terrorism legislation, however, exists to suspend universal rights in response to coercive threats to safety.  Yaxley-Lennon clearly has more potential to spread fear than paper-holding pensioners, but that potential has not yet been fulfilled. 

Likewise, the unexplained detention of George Galloway, the broadcaster and former MP, under the same legislation last year also seems like a stretch. Galloway has a large audience and often offers analysis that favours positions taken by the Russian government. There is an argument that under the current circumstances that represents disloyalty. His previous employment by Russian media outlets has led some to question the motivation behind the lines he takes. That, however, is not terrorism. For the state to use terrorist legislation to harass those engaged in peaceable disagreement with it sets a dangerous precedent regardless of the subject’s views. 

The current controversy over the definition of terrorism is diametrically opposite to one we have recently had. Many argued that Axel Rudakubana ought to have been prosecuted as a terrorist. The rationale here was that he had caused widespread terror amongst the population. In the absence of a proven political motive, however, his crime could not be classed as terrorism. Now, the opposite position is being pursued by the government. A political motive is clearly provable for all the Palestine Action cases, Yaxley Lennon’s activities, and George Galloway’s career. None, however, have personally issued threats or committed serious violence in support of their political views. Rudakubana spread terror without an agenda, these people have an agenda but have not spread terror – although Yaxley-Lennon is treading a very thin line. 

The suspicion persists that because terrorism legislation allows the state more latitude in detention and sentencing, it is misrepresenting purported crimes in order to invoke those powers. That perception alone is enough to undermine confidence in the system, but how the government proceeds now might have unexpected consequences. 

A common reaction online to this issue is that it only affects people who are acting at the very fringe of acceptable politics. Those engaged in direct action, like the Filton Four, and controversial figures like Yaxley-Lennon and Galloway live political lives that are far removed from a public that remains largely moderate or disinterested in the causes that they champion. ‘Don’t make trouble and you’ll be fine,’ is the polite version of FAFO which you can google if you need to. Such discussion as there has been tends to split along political lines, with those on the left seeing government overreach regarding Palestine Action and the right feeling that Yaxley-Lennon is unfairly targeted. This misses the point. 

In shifting the goalposts as regards the definition of terrorism, the government is moving the boundary between society and its enemies closer to us all. Those on the right who think the Palestine Action protestors deserve their fate should contemplate the status of people who spray paint speed cameras. On the left, cheering the arbitrary detention of Yaxley-Lennon comes with the responsibility to ponder what a Reform UK government might do with such powers now that the precedent is set. 

When the High Court ruled the proscription of Palestine Action unlawful, the government had an ideal escape route from this mess. It could have reluctantly accepted the court’s decision, noting that courts are independent in the UK, and quietly dropped the 1600 plus prosecutions of peaceful protestors that will, at best, make a mockery of our system and potentially spark civil disobedience with which the system can’t cope. Instead, Shabana Mahmood opted to appeal the decision and is left with a lose/lose situation. Either the government prevails, leading to the outcome I’ve described, or it loses, revealing itself as illegally authoritarian. 

Those who reflexively see the hidden hand of Israeli influence in the decision to proscribe, might have underestimated the political incompetence of Keir Starmer’s team. There is a reason that hundreds of Labour backbenchers are willing to risk all on a new leader, and it is because they have seen up-close how dangerously clueless the Prime Minister and those around him are in office. A litany of tin-eared decisions, U-turns, and indifference to public opinion has created an atmosphere in which the most right-wing government in UK history may well be elected. The misapplication of terrorist legislation hands such a government, and conceivably, a far-left successor, the necessary toolkit to carry out widespread repression without the need for fresh legislation. In the dog days of his failed premiership, the Prime Minister should draw on his human rights background and reverse this momentum. If he does not, the spectacle of hundreds of pensioners being carried into courtrooms to face extraordinary penalties for confected offences will cling to his legacy forever.