Friday 13 November 2015 will be forever remembered as the day when everything changed. Like 11 September 2001, when so many died in the name of a fanaticism forged in the fires of hatred and contempt, the massacre in Paris shocked the world into realising afresh that no one is immune to the deathly impact of a suicide bomber or a gunman armed with a Kalashnikov.
We feel for the victims of Paris and for the victims of terrorism everywhere. We mourn for lives cut short in the most terrifying way imaginable. We also tremble with a fear born out of a recognition that those who kill in this way are cold-blooded extremists who have lost the ability to value life and the importance of the bonds that hold humanity together. Terrorism is terrifying precisely because we cannot conceive the degree of depravity required to plan and execute the deaths of innocent civilians whose only crime is to go about the business of their everyday lives.
Terrorism is also much more extended in its scope than ever before, adding to the sense of insecurity that we all feel on day-to-day basis. From New York, London and Paris through to Turkey and Lebanon, it touches us all.
No wonder, then, that here in the United Kingdom we look to government for protection. When faced with criminal behaviour that is both impossible to comprehend and seemingly able to visit death and destruction on any community upon which it chooses to focus its murderous attention, it is perfectly reasonable for us to expect government to combat terrorism on our behalf. That is, after all, the first duty of the state – to ensure that its citizens are secure, safe and able to live their lives in peace.
It is in this context that I support our government’s response to the attacks in Paris. Yes, our civil liberties are critically important and, yes, any powers made available to the police need to be placed firmly within the context of clear guidelines designed to ensure that they are used proportionately and reasonably. These safeguards are exactly why it is so unhelpful to use the simplistic term ‘shoot to kill’. What we are looking at, rather, is a power made available for use in situations where professionals trained in risk assessment recognise there is no other way of disarming individuals armed with military weaponry or clutching devices designed to detonate the explosives strapped to their bodies.
To put it more bluntly, were we not all hugely relieved to see the French police end the terror that took hold of the Bataclan theatre hall last Friday? The price was high, but what other option was available to those officers whose job it was to save lives in an impossibly difficult situation?
Security, of course, is about much more than this. It is about having robust border checks in place, for instance, and a rigorous intelligence capacity which works effectively across borders to keep us safe. This is exactly why those who deploy terms such as ‘shoot to kill’ do no favours to the debate about how to combat terror. It is an intellectually flawed term, usually deployed in a reactionary and lazy manner to avoid analysis of the real issues.
My constituents understand that. They understand the critical nature of the situation we find ourselves in and they look to politicians to show intellectual bravery and leadership as we equip ourselves to defeat terrorism. They look too for political unity in the face of an existential threat to our way of life.
That is the challenge for our Labour leadership. Either we indulge in simplistic and reactionary thinking on national security or we rise to the occasion by showing statesmanship and a commitment to getting to grips with the difficult decisions that have to be made. One can only hope that we are politically mature enough to make the right choice.
———————————
Angela Smith MP is member of parliament for Penistone and Stocksbridge. She tweets @AngelaSmithMP
———————————
Thank you for this thoughtful contribution to the debate. I wonder if you could also tell us your views on the death of, for example, Jean-Charles de Menezes, in the context of “situations where professionals trained in risk assessment recognise there is no other way of disarming individuals”? Might there have been an alternative to putting 7 bullets in the head of this totally innocent young man? If so, and if you don’t like the term ‘shoot to kill’, is there another expression you would suggest to use? Or do we just let our police force use lethal force against anyone they choose, on the grounds that they are professionals trained in risk assessment?
The whole point about Jean Charles de Menezes was that it was a terrible, tragic mistake. The police believed that he was one of the failed July 21st bombers – if he HAD been then he would have been an immeidate danger to everyone around him, particularly aboard a tube train. If the police had got their identification right, then would you agree that they had no choice but to kill him before he potentially detonated an explosive aboard a tube killing dozens of people?
The fact that the police got it wrong, was a staggering piece of incompetence. But it has not been repeated since, and therefore we must hope that they have learned the lessons. Of course Menezes should never have died, but to say that his death invalidates the whole “shoot to kill” policy is like saying that one death at the hands of an incompetent surgeon invalidates all surgery.