As part of my new years push to sort myself out I’ve decided
to try and attend a few legal events a month, just to get a feel for things and
hey you never know... do some networking.
So Tuesday night saw me schlep to the offices of DLA Piper: one
of the largest law firms and the largest provider of pro bono legal services in
the world for a talk organised by Justice, a law reform and human rights
charity.
It was fascinating. David Anderson QC is the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in the UK. Unless you've been living under a rock or haven't seen or read the news lately you'll know that Parliament is currently debating a counter-terror bill with new powers including the toughening up of
He spoke (as you would expect) with authority and elegance on a range of topics, from his belief that the EU is an overwhelmingly positive thing to his views on terrorism as a crime. He said that while there are undoubtedly crimes of mass murder that need to be viewed under a framework of terrorism, perhaps it is too easy to throw other acts of criminality under that umbrella all in the name of the preservation of freedom. The atrocities in Paris lead, rightly, to knee jerk reactions, questions are asked and resolutions made: "How was this allowed to happen?" "We must not let this happen again". The point Mr.Anderson QC made was that unfortunately there is only one way to prevent acts of terrorism and that involves becoming the kind of society there would be little point in defending in the first place.
One other interesting point he made was his belief that one of the most symbiotic relationships he encounters is that of Terrorist and Journalist. He said of this "They are both, fundamentally looking for the same outcome: the words TERROR splashed in bold letters across the front pages of the papers". It's an interesting view point. Essentially British journalism is doing the job of the terrorists, if the aim of the terrorist is to create fear then a quick scan of the newspapers tells you all you need to know.
I've been thinking about this for a while and while I don't have any answers or probably any well informed opinions I do think this: There has been a rise in extremism be it religious or political, my feeling is that vulnerable people are targeted and recruited by people with extremist views and are frankly not smart enough to fend off these attacks. The solution would then seem to be for moderates to target these people first, go on a recruitment drive of their own. The problem is that the argument for moderation or liberalism seems to be a harder furrow to plough. For the rise of UKIP the argument that your life is worse and it's the fault of faceless bureaucrats and terrible immigration polices is an easy sell. It's a much less envious task to talk about trade benefits, human rights progressions and a rule of law for all. It's harder to turn round and say, if your life sucks, do something about it yourself. As for living in a country under threat of terrorism, there's a great quote from the TV show The West Wing: "If they're shooting at you, you know you're doing something right".
He spoke (as you would expect) with authority and elegance on a range of topics, from his belief that the EU is an overwhelmingly positive thing to his views on terrorism as a crime. He said that while there are undoubtedly crimes of mass murder that need to be viewed under a framework of terrorism, perhaps it is too easy to throw other acts of criminality under that umbrella all in the name of the preservation of freedom. The atrocities in Paris lead, rightly, to knee jerk reactions, questions are asked and resolutions made: "How was this allowed to happen?" "We must not let this happen again". The point Mr.Anderson QC made was that unfortunately there is only one way to prevent acts of terrorism and that involves becoming the kind of society there would be little point in defending in the first place.
One other interesting point he made was his belief that one of the most symbiotic relationships he encounters is that of Terrorist and Journalist. He said of this "They are both, fundamentally looking for the same outcome: the words TERROR splashed in bold letters across the front pages of the papers". It's an interesting view point. Essentially British journalism is doing the job of the terrorists, if the aim of the terrorist is to create fear then a quick scan of the newspapers tells you all you need to know.
I've been thinking about this for a while and while I don't have any answers or probably any well informed opinions I do think this: There has been a rise in extremism be it religious or political, my feeling is that vulnerable people are targeted and recruited by people with extremist views and are frankly not smart enough to fend off these attacks. The solution would then seem to be for moderates to target these people first, go on a recruitment drive of their own. The problem is that the argument for moderation or liberalism seems to be a harder furrow to plough. For the rise of UKIP the argument that your life is worse and it's the fault of faceless bureaucrats and terrible immigration polices is an easy sell. It's a much less envious task to talk about trade benefits, human rights progressions and a rule of law for all. It's harder to turn round and say, if your life sucks, do something about it yourself. As for living in a country under threat of terrorism, there's a great quote from the TV show The West Wing: "If they're shooting at you, you know you're doing something right".
No comments:
Post a Comment