Terrorism

Now, you may ask, what has this post got to do with terrorism. The actions of Insulate Britain or similar groups cannot be considered as terrorism surely?

Well if you look at the Crown Prosecution Service website and their definition of terrorism which is:

“Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public.  It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

Now, let’s break that down

Terrorism is the use or threat of action – well insulate Britain are both threatening and indeed using action.

both in and outside of the UK – Their actions have affected roads around the M25 and ports. This is obviously within the UK.

designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public – The actions are by their own admissions intended to influence the UK government (to insulate properties). Whether the actions are designed to intimidate the public is a moot point, and irrelevant here as the actions meet the influencing government criteria.

It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause – This is again obvious from their own admissions. They are advancing either a political or an ideological cause and as such meet this part of the criteria.

So, by the definition of terrorism, Insulate Britain are also a terrorist organisation and their actions such be treated as acts of terrorism!

Let’s consider this situation. One of the Civil Service Unions is unhappy with pay negotiations and its members decide to strike in support of a pay rise.

Terrorism is the use or threat of action – The threat of, or actually striking.

both in and outside of the UK – Obviously any actions must by definition be in or out of the UK!

designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public – Obviously a strike is designed to influence the employers, who are the UK government.

It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause – The strike could be seen to be advancing either a political or ideological cause – i.e., that civil servants should be paid more.

Thus, a simple threat of a strike is now deemed to be a terrorist and the Union a terrorist organisation.

Think about any sort of protest and it is likely to be covered by this definition of terrorism.

You could probably argue that a group of football fans being escorted from train station or coaches to a football ground whilst chanting football songs is covered by this definition:

Terrorism is the use or threat of action – The chanting whilst walking as part of a group is action/

both in and outside of the UK – Obviously any actions must by definition be in or out of the UK!

designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public – The chanting could be said to be intimidating to the public and fans of the home team.

It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause – It could be argued their ideological cause is the support or promotion of their team and their belief their team is the best.

There you go, you are now a terrorist be going to watch your team play away with others!

I have not even mentioned the use of chants such as the famous Millwall one:

          “We Are Millwall

          Super Millwall

          From The Den

          No One Likes Us

          No One Fights Us

          We Are Millwall

From The Den”

Or the Newcastle chant (v West Ham)

He’s only a poor little hammer

His clothes are all tattered and torn

He came for a fight, so we set him alight

And now he won’t come anymore

Both chants, along with many others could be seen to be intended to intimidate and as such it could be argued they are acts of terrorism.

In fact, we talk about some football grounds being intimidating places for teams to come, simply because of the noise the home fans make. So, are they all terrorists committing terrorist acts? Well according to this extraordinarily wide definition of terrorism, the answer must be yes.