LNAT, MCB and Mosul

Recently, I have been practising past LNAT essays to prepare for my own admissions test coming up on 2nd November. I am not sitting the LNAT, but the essay part of the AMES test is very similar to that of the LNAT. This blog will include an essay I wrote. Ignore grammatical sloppiness (on an even higher level than normal) as the time pressure in this exam is very, very real.

The last one I wrote was -"We must be prepared to sacrifice our traditional liberties to defeat terrorism" - a fascinating question and one relevant both to my course and current affairs. Yesterday, news broke that the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is going to release an anti-radicalisation programme to rival the government's existing Prevent programme. In addition to this, there is of course the ongoing assault on Mosul, one of ISIS's last and largest territories. Experts have widely suggested that, when the group loses this major city in its self-professed caliphate, there will be a shift in the nature of their efforts. In light of their dwindling base, from which to launch a military campaign in the Middle East, more terrorist attacks in the west are predicted, much like a wounded animal flailing its limbs desperately in the moment of its imminent demise. Whilst the approaching possibility of a deep wound in the organisation's heart is a positive development, it will also make efforts to combat radicalisation, and future terrorist attacks, all the more urgent. Underneath is the essay I wrote, which includes an outline of how we might assure that we accomplish this vital mission.

“We must be prepared to sacrifice traditional liberties to defeat terrorism”

This question is one which has become increasingly relevant in recent times with the rise of terrorist acts against western powers. It fundamentally pivots on a debate between our liberties (such as the Freedom of Speech) and our safety, and whether the former jeopardises the latter in the current climate. If this were the case, it would be a simple choice to make that the sacrifice of our liberties must be made to defeat terrorism. In reality, however, the act of increasing protection from terrorist acts is not the same as defeating terrorism. The debate over traditional liberties is therefore not as fundamental in the task of eradicating this threat as the statement presupposes.

Much is made of the conflict between western ideals of social liberties and the prevention of future terrorist attacks. On the one hand, some argue that restricting the Freedom of Speech for Muslim preachers suspected (but not proven) to be radicalising, or preventing the wearing of provocative Islamic dress (eg the niqab) would serve to limit the potential for extremism and extremist-driven attacks on home-soil. On the other hand, advocates of liberalism argue that this would amount to a concession that our values are being defeated; instead, we must hold true to them and reject the terror that these acts aim to produce.

The primary responsibility of government, however, is to protect its people and ensure their safety. The protection of lives is surely more important than the maintenance of traditional liberties. A dramatic reductio ad absurdum scenario to prove this would be as follows: would a country in which all the people were killed in terrorist attacks, in the name of upholding their rights, be preferable to a country where every life is protected at the expense of all of their liberties? Whilst neither situation is desirable, the second is clearly more so than the first. Thus, a government ought to prioritise protecting its people over maintaining the sanctity of their rights.

This would provide a satisfactory response to the statement “we must be prepared to sacrifice traditional liberties to prevent terrorist acts”. This, however, is not the task at hand. To decide whether the benefits of relinquishing liberal values in defeating terrorism outweighs the sacrifice, an understanding of how terrorism can be defeated is necessary.

Although producing a blueprint of this kind is no easy feat, as each specific war with each specific terrorist group is different, broadly there are three necessary steps to ‘defeating terrorism’: rout them out in their own territories; work with local powers to strangle them and prevent regional survival in a cohesive effort; defeat/undermine their ideology. The importance of step one is obvious in that, without military pressure on the group’s supplies, forces or leadership, they are free to perpetuate their acts at will. The importance of step two is seen in the absence of its application regarding ISIS, which was aided in its early years by the Gulf and Pakistani funding of Wahhabism. Without working with these regional powers, the West was unsuccessful in preventing its growth into a potent force. The third step is the ultimate, and perhaps hardest goal, essentially the ‘nail in the coffin’ action. In defeating the ideology, the beliefs which drive radicalisation and recruitment become extinct, and the wasps’ nest dies.

It is now apparent that, of the three steps to defeating terrorism, only one is relevant to home-soil ‘traditional liberties’; foreign military intervention and regional cooperation do not implicate the need to sacrifice these liberties. The suggestion in the statement of such a sacrifice’s centrality to efforts against terrorism is misleading. Its importance is only relevant to the step of defeating their ideology.

The question, then, is whether we could defeat terrorism whilst upholding our traditional liberties. A better way of asking this is as follows: would sacrificing our traditional liberties be an act of surrendering to the illiberal views of terrorism? If so, then it is imperative to uphold them obdurately in order to prove their superiority to those of our foes. To stand tall in the face of such danger, and permit Freedom of Speech, Dress, and Belief, could amount to a rejection of the threatening ideology and rob it of its impact and support. In seeing that their assault on western society, and its foundational values, is drawing a blank, they will be starved of propaganda victories and morale, the very effect which their attacks aim to have on us.

This stance, however, is predicated on the assumption that restricting social liberties (in order to improve the safety of civilians), symbolises an admission of their inferiority and so prevents the conquering of terrorist ideology. It seems a strange assertion to make that nationwide limits to preaching hatred, or searching the internet without state observation, would single-handedly perpetuate the belief that all non-Muslims must die, as well as the constant stream of converts to this belief. Surely such measures would only aggravate already-radicalised Muslims? All other Muslims, who are just as opposed to terrorist beliefs, and indeed just as at risk to their actions, would benefit from and support such protective measures. The notion that such limits to the liberties of the whole nation stand in the way of defeating terrorism is therefore a flawed one.

Indeed, the real risk for further radicalisation presents itself in the persecution, either by state or the public, of Muslims. Discriminatory treatment of Muslims, simply because they are Muslims, turns them towards radicalisation, or at least newfound sympathy for the terrorist mentality. It is, therefore, not the sacrifice of liberties which risks perpetuating terrorism, but the excessive restriction of these liberties to a targeted group of society.

After assessment, it is now clear that the statement, expressing the need to sacrifice traditional liberties to defeat terrorism, is somewhat misleading, but ultimately accurate. Western society could defeat terrorism by upholding all of its western values, which would represent a rejection of terrorist ideals and a refusal to bow down to their will. Such resistance, however, would come at a cost – namely that of future terrorist attacks which are, to an extent, made more likely by these very traditional liberties. This would be negligent to the state’s number one priority to its citizens: their protection. It is also clear that sacrificing these liberties would not hold back the effort against terrorism as some fear it would. The real hindrance to this is posed by indiscriminate persecution of all Muslims. Thus, to strike a balance between an effective endeavour to defeat terrorism, and enforce civilian safety as best as possible, we must be prepared to sacrifice some traditional liberties.