Terrorists and Traitors – Real and Imagined

Expressions like “terrorist” and “traitor” are freely bandied around, by politicians, governments and, unfortunately, by many ordinary people on social media.  This is another symptom of the deepening divisions in our country, and the culture of confrontation online which feeds them.  So it is worth asking: who are the real terrorists and traitors, and who are the people misusing those terms to vilify their opponents?

Terrorism – Real and Imagined

For most people, in everyday English, terrorism involves violence against people, not damage to property (unless that physically threatens people), not accidental injury but a deliberate intention to kill or maim, for ideological reasons.  The two main groups who are doing that in Britain today are Islamist extremists and the far-right.  Up until now, the security forces seem to have had more success in infiltrating the far-right groups, but you might have noticed that an undercover agent code-named ‘Farouk’ helped Greater Manchester police to disrupt this plot to commit mass murder.

The legal definition of terrorism in the UK encompasses the dubious concept of “serious damage to property where that action is: designed to influence the government…”.   Serious damage may well be a serious crime, but is that what most people understand by terrorism? The implication here is that damaging property to influence the government is more serious than, for example, setting fire to someone’s house to take revenge on them.

I was reflecting on this when reading about the Palestine Action prisoners on hunger strike.  I have mixed feelings about that organisation.  I agree that Britain should not be selling arms or sharing intelligence with Israel while their conflict with the Palestinians continues.  That said, when I saw they had damaged RAF planes, I felt: that is both a serious crime and an unpatriotic act.  In a democracy, no institution should be immune from criticism or protest action, but serious damage to British military equipment threatens all of us.  Like it or not, we may need those planes before too long.

So damaging a plane is a serious crime, but is it terrorism? Possibly under the law, but not as most people understand the term.  Even more extreme, is arresting people for holding placards mentioning Palestine Action under terrorism legislation.  That raises serious questions about the limits of free speech.  Advocating violence is beyond that limit, but where is the evidence that these people were advocating violence? (Note – that is violence within Britain.  Supporting one side in a foreign war is not a crime.)

Traitors – Real and Imagined

The TV show might have trivialised the term a bit, but in everyday English, a ‘traitor to your country’ is someone who aids the enemies of that country.  So who are those enemies?

You can find imaginary enemies anywhere if you really want to, but again, the word ‘enemy’ in this context, implies violence against British citizens or UK residents.  Economic competitors may be adversaries, but they are not enemies.  So when politicians or the media accuse their opponents of being traitors, outside of that context, they are devaluing the term - and the whole concept of loyalty to your country.

Helping a terrorist group – a real terrorist group – could be considered treachery, as would helping a regime which has organised killings in Britain.  The recent conviction of Nathan Gill, former leader of Reform UK, for assisting the Russian regime, was a clear-cut example.  He is a real traitor.

Foreign powers often infiltrate agents into the governments or parliaments of their enemies, but Gill was no infiltrator.  He was a committed member, of UKIP, the Brexit Party and Reform UK, close to its leadership, before he started working for the Russians.  He seemed to see no inconsistency between those roles.  That raises some wider concerns, if that party were ever to gain power at a national level.