 |
| Solidarity in Manchester : CBS News) |
Sadly, this isn't the first attack with multiple casualties the UK had witnessed this year. It's only been two months since a man drove into dozens in Westminster. Before the government even considered strategising and deliver proposals regarding security, they called for a general election. Technically, as I write this, we have no Parliament. So strategy is put on hold until Friday 9th June when MPs are elected. As a short term solution, Prime Minister Theresa May deployed extra troops in an attempt to halt another attack from occurring. Security has suddenly become a secondary policy priority for the political candidates to campaign for - overtaking immigration and public services.
Despite the solemn atmosphere in the air, I want to remain positive. In order for politicians to achieve that without scaremongering, they have a duty to assure the public offering peace, unity and making bold decisions. For me, this can be achieved in five stages. I feel applying these steps can prevent further attacks in the long term, and deter anyone else from ever attacking anyone again. Other countries can follow suit.
Stage One: The Internet Conundrum
 |
| Mark Zuckerberg (Image: Mercury News) |
Stage Two: Deradicalise
If you believe in media reports, security services do know and monitor those suspected of committing a terrorism act. If they're as under-resourced as speculated, more must be done to ensure they have the funds. But not all is lost - the MI5 and the like can change tactics. First, an idea is to arrest and question 'hate preachers' that use social media platforms to recruit vulnerable young people. With my Stage One conquered and website bosses on government side, they should help during this process. Then, those radicalised should be taken to deradicalisation programmes which would introduce them to an aspirational open society and promote the benefits of integration. Call me naive, but I don't believe people are born with tendencies to kill - they simply adapt to an environment where they're brainwashed. People's perceptions change and our minds can open to new possibilities. Why not allow these radicalised individuals a chance to think without hate or revenge?
 |
| Sky News' Kay Burley in Manchester (Image: YouTube) |
After an attack the scale of Manchester's, it is natural for journalists to report with great analysis. Yet, I question their current role in doing their jobs when discussing terrorist attacks at home - this includes social media users too. We are all absolutely within our right to condemn the attack and offer sympathies to victims and their families. This however, should come with caution. You can't justify committing a horror attack, but the only reason I believe they do such is for attention. They're willing to risk their reputation and image so they can get any sort of publicity. For the broadcasters reporting days on end about the attack as if it's the only story to tell, and for News Feeds dominated with solidarity messages for weeks on end, I fear that's exactly what the culprits want. In doing so, the press should stop announcing statements from terrorist groups who claim responsibility for these attacks. These groups are reportedly against a free Western civilisation, let's not give them a free path to the front page.
Stage Four: Drop the Guns
I wrote back in 2015 that the atrocities in France was a retaliation to their military involvement of a Daesh member. Jeremy Corbyn, Labour's current leader, proclaimed last week that UK's foreign policy has to change and insinuated the British Middle Eastern policy over the past 30 years has triggered a rise in 'Islamist extremism'. I'm sorry to say, he has a point. Nearly two years ago, Parliament voted in favour of military action in Iraq and Syria to defeat such terrorist recruits that have wrecked communities in these areas. This has clearly not worked and sadly the government haven't a Plan B prior to calling for a general election. The best strategy moving forward is dropping the weapons and offer new alternatives that won't trigger revenge attacks.
Stage Five: Talk
Jeremy Corbyn was attacked by Boris Johnson for suggesting that dialogue with terrorists is why the Labour leader can't be trusted with British security. Goodness knows what the Johnson household atmosphere is like today when the foreign secretary's sister Rachel said practically the same thing on Sky News' The Pledge. What Corbyn and Rachel Johnson are saying make total sense. Who should the government be talking to from these terrorist groups? A good place to start are these 'hate preachers' I mentioned earlier. They shan't be asked to justify - but this cleaner solution will allow Parliament to understand how extremism is supported and ensure that further atrocities aren't endured.
Terrorism is complicated to define and the more we, as non-experts, try doing so, the more painful it is for us as innocent individuals. Each attacker has a different motive and mustn't be compared to a separate incident elsewhere. The people of Manchester have been magnificently defiant and no doubt will be scarred from what happened on 22nd May for a long time. Yet, delving too much into the events that night won't do anything unless those in authority use their time to effectively combat hatred of this scale. My five stages are simply suggestions, but if they're implemented, at least there's a secure Plan B for a safer global community.
Comments
Post a Comment