It’s easy to label violence like the Southport attack as terrorism. I’m afraid the truth is more complex | Samira Shackle

AIn the chaos of riots and misinformation that followed last summer’s Southport attack, the horrific horror of the crime itself seemed almost to have subsided: the murder of three young girls, and the attempted murder of eight others and two adults. This horror is palpable Again in view This week – with new scrutiny of all the missed opportunities to stop it. The fact that has received the most attention is that the 18-year-old killer, Axel Rudakopana, was Referred to as banthe government’s program to combat extremism, three times in 2019 and 2021. Each time, Prevent concluded that his preoccupation with violence was troubling but did not intervene. Rudakupana did not have a coherent ideology, so he was not considered a good fit for the programme.

At a press conference about the killings in Southport on Tuesday, Keir Starmer said the decision was “clearly wrong”. He pledged to change the law So that lone killers who do not have a clear ideology can be tried as terrorists. “When I look at the details of this case, the extreme nature of the violence, the precise plan to attack young children in a place of joy and safety – clearly the violence is intended to terrorize people – I understand why people are questioning the meaning of the word terrorism,” he said. UK law defines terrorism as violence , or a threat of violence, committed “with the aim of furthering a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.” It is not clear what could be achieved by expanding the definition to include non-ideological violence. Rudakubana was obsessed with the shootings In American schools, in his call for expanded terrorism legislation, Starmer made a comparison to these acts of mass violence. But in the United States, most mass shootings are not classified as acts of terrorism. Sometimes violence is violence.

So why is the government so keen to define the Southport incident, and other similar incidents, as a terrorist incident? The answer may be logistical: the desire to solve a problem using existing tools. In the “Prevent” programme, a key pillar of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, and channelwhich is a de-radicalization program in which different agencies work with individuals, and we have a fairly well-established system of targeted intervention to calm violence and address extremist ideas. There is no parallel early intervention program for those who clearly pose a risk of violence but lack a coherent ideology. Only about 7% of referrals (although this number varies from year to year) are sent to the Prevent program. Taken forwardThe most common decision is that – as in the case of Rudakupana – there may be cause for concern, but… There is no specific terrorist threat.

It is not clear where someone with Rudakubana’s profile could be referred to next. The UK has limited specialist police forces to deal with people whose behavior is worrying, and there are few programs carrying out preventive work with violent offenders. Community and youth work, social care and mental health services have suffered serious cuts over the past decade and a half. Prevent was not the only government agency that failed to intervene early and effectively with Rudakupana. He had previously been convicted of violently assaulting another child at school and had been referred to the Youth Offending Team; Lancashire Police visited his home address five times; He was repeatedly referred to the protection committee in his area; He was in contact with child and adolescent mental health services. However, none of these agencies realized the level of threat it posed, or had the appropriate tools to intervene.

There are many problems with simply expanding counterterrorism programs to include people without terrorist motives. For a start, we don’t know How effective “Block or channel” – There is very limited evidence in the public domain, and the government is silent on this matter. Furthermore, the counterterrorism agenda is incredibly political, which in itself may be a factor limiting its effectiveness. In some communities, Prevent is a highly distorted brand and people may not want to cooperate with it. We should also be concerned about a political culture in which every act of violence is viewed through the prism of terrorism, given how the specter of national security concerns is often used to undermine civil liberties. In the past decade, for example, Prevent has moved away from a focus on violence toward the more ambiguous goal of eliminating extremist ideas. Critics argue This shift has affected freedom of expression, especially for ethnic minorities.

The Rudakupana case is muddled by the fact that he was He was also charged, back in OctoberWith two terrorist crimes – possession of an Al-Qaeda training manual and possession of the toxin ricin. But his interest in evidence seems to have been more about style than ideology. He also had access to vast amounts of material relating to massacres and genocide in schools. However, these accusations were seized upon by right-wing agitators Evidence of a cover-up. Terrorism is largely emotional: riots last summer were sparked by the spread of misinformation that portrayed the incident as a terrorist attack carried out by a recently arrived person on a small boat, clouding amorphous fears about foreign invaders. The truth is smaller, sadder, and less clear: a British-born teenager obsessed with mass violence, spending a lot of time alone and online, absorbing horrific content – ​​which multiple services have failed to address, despite dozens of opportunities.

The question of the motives behind acts of extremist violence, and how the state can prevent them from occurring, is very complex. The public inquiry announced by the government will delve into more than just the definition of terrorism, and will also look into the easy availability of violent extremist content online and the failure of various state agencies to intervene in the Rudakupana case. This seems to be the right approach. Unrestricted access not only to footage of extreme violence, but to advice on how to commit acts of violence – and even the physical tools to do so, since Rodakopana I ordered a knife On Amazon – These are deep societal problems that have no direct solutions. Add to this hollowed out welfare and criminal justice systems ill-equipped to deal with increasingly common issues such as social isolation and preoccupation with violence, and you have a perfect storm. The right question is not why Prevent didn’t work with Rudakopana, but why there wasn’t anyone else who could do it.