Cost of terror

The tragic events in Paris last Friday have left Europe reeling. Politicians have been clamoring to denounce the atrocity and by chance announce their latest round of measures to tackle any such threat in the future.
Social media has been inundated with people declaring their solidarity with the French. Others though have criticised the outpouring of emotion as a colonial attitude which should have been just as strong when a suicide bomber in Beirut murdered more than 40 people, or Islamic State allegedly brought down a passenger jet leaving Sharm el-Sheik.
Why have people not been so quick to share their sympathy? Of course there is the sad fact that many people do only care about things which happen on their doorstep . They know where France is and therefore it means more to them  This is not the reason for so much emotion over one event and not the other. The sad fact is that a suicide bomber in Beirut or a passenger jet being blown out of the sky aren’t shocking any more. We have become inculcated against the emotion response that they should engender.
This is a terrible fact to acknowledge and it has even more terrible consequences. As we become more used to a wider variety of terrorist actions then the terrorists will have to start becoming even more extreme if they want to maintain the same level of fear among the population.
Terrorism isn’t new. It isn’t about religion, ideology, politics, hate, or any of the multitude of different reasons which are trotted out. It has little to do with an influx of refugees, aside from acknowledging that these are the same people they are fleeing from. It is down to individuals. Individuals who believe that they are somehow better than other people. They may use religion as an excuse  it Islam has as little to do with IS as Christianity does with the Klu Klux Klan.
Terrorists have been around for hundreds of years and over that time their actions have evolved as people become less affected by what they see and hear. Their objective rarely shifts though and it is this which really should cause the fear.
Even in their deluded minds IS members probably do not imagine that they will be parading down the mall as part of the conquering army. If they are to bring down governments then they will do it be crippling the economy.
The bombing of the Russian airliner has already started a chain reaction which will see holiday resorts lose millions as tourists stay away for the time being. The attacks in Paris merely highlight to potential holidaymakers that they aren't safe anywhere and would be better of staying at home.
The full impact this will have on trade and currency is yet to be realised, however, the markets are already seeing the affect as stocks drop in value.
Meanwhile governments, already suffering from economic woes and looking to make cuts, are forced to expend more money than budgeted on increasing security, even though they know that this is mostly for perception rather than practical reasons.
Terrorism is a criminal rather than military action. To call then soldiers or declare war against them elevates them in people’s minds and increases the threat. They are murderers and thieves. If viewed as this then their impact starts to be diminished. Their effect on the economy minimised. It is only when we allow the fear they want to spread that they can harm us. Their greatest fear is that we unite, not just French and English, European and American but everyone, Syrian, Iraqi, Russian. We need to work together to create a strong global economy and remove their only hope of ever achieving close to their ambitions.

Terror laws create division

DESPITE only returning from summer recess on Monday the British coalition government is already mired in controversy and disputes with proposed anti-terror laws.

Prime Minister David Cameron has come into conflict with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and civil liberties groups over plans to tackle extremist elements in the UK.

The proposals come in the wake of revelations that approximately 500 Britons have travelled to Syria to join with the fundamentalist Islamic State organisation. 

Speaking to MP's on Monday Mr Cameron set out his commitment to the new laws: "It is abhorrent that people who declare their allegiance elsewhere can return to the United Kingdom and pose a threat to our national security.

"We are clear in principle that what we need is a targeted, discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK."

Civil liberties groups and MP's have expressed reservations over the issue amid fears that the far reaching policies could be used to curtail human rights.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve warned that some of the concepts in the proposed legislation would be a "mistake".

"I do share concerns that have been expressed that the suggestion British nationals, however horribly they may be alleged to have behaved, should be prevented from returning to this country. Not only does it offend principles of international law, it would actually offend basic principles of our own common law as well," he said.

Among critics from within the Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition is Sir Menzies Campbell who told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "I think it's rather difficult and it might well constitute illegality. To render citizens stateless is regarded as illegal in international law.

"To render them stateless temporarily, which seems to me the purpose of what's being proposed, can also I think be described as illegal.

"At the very least it's the kind of question that will be tested here in our own courts and perhaps also in the European Court of Human Rights."

The row has reinvigorated the debate over freedoms within the UK which were addressed last year following the detention of journalist David Miranda. At the time the National Union of Journalists released a statement warning of the impact upon the freedom of the press and democracy.

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary, said:

"The shocking detention of David Miranda for the crime of being the partner of a respected investigative journalist points to the growing abuse of so-called anti-terror laws in the UK...

"This is not an isolated problem. The NUJ believes that journalists are coming under more scrutiny and surveillance, being stopped at borders and their work interfered with, simply for doing their job."

If passed Mr Cameron's plans to protect Britain against suspected terrorists could undermine the very values which he hopes to defend. For those travelling to conflict zones, whether for charitable or journalistic purposes, this could be inherently concerning. 

To combat extremism Mr Cameron needs to realise that by creating yet more feelings of isolation and separation within communities he is only magnifying the problem.