Editorial Comment:
Max Hill, the new independent terror watchdog, describes the threat to the UK as “present and severe”. In an interview with this newspaper, he goes so far as to say that British citizens face a threat the scale of which has not been seen since the Seventies. It is necessary, he argues, to strike a balance between civil liberties and security. Nobody could disagree with him. The question is, have we got the current balance right?
On the one hand, as Mr Hill emphasises, our security forces are doing a remarkable job with limited resources. On the other hand, suspects seem able to slip through the net. Last week brought Jamal al-Harith to the world’s attention. Al-Harith was a Briton who had been captured in Afghanistan, imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay, released and returned to the UK and received up to £1 million in tax-payers’ money – only to disappear and re-emerge as a suicide bomber in Iraq. A political fight broke out over who was responsible for his release and compensation package. But the more immediate, practical question is how he was able to get out of the country. The lack of proper checks at exit ports is worrying.
Mr Hill is also concerned about current jihadists – “we know this means at least hundreds of British citizens” – who have been demoralised and will now be looking to return from the Middle East. He draws attention, too, to the challenge of online radicalisation, claiming that children as young as 14 are being warped by videos and hate speech disseminated through the internet. Mr Hill does not support extra laws to force social media giants to take down extremist content and wants to examine the use of Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures – control orders that restrict movement or financial activity – warning that they could pose a “serious infringement” to civil liberties.
In other words, it is easy to see where Mr Hill could find himself in conflict with the Government. Ultimately, Theresa May has to reconcile the need to preserve a free society with the need to stop those that would destroy it. Key to that is the rigorous enforcement of the law, protection of the borders, a proportionate scrutiny of online activity, proper funding for the security services and resistance to vexatious claims by the human rights lobby. If the threat to this country is indeed severe, the defence must be muscular.