The Tribune

SUCH is the US mainstream media’s concentration on domestic issues that the serious terrorist attack which took place at the end of last month on London Bridge in the heart of Britain’s capital may even have escaped some people’s notice altogether.

The incident was depressingly reminiscent of similar attacks by Islamic extremists. In this case, a man of Pakistani origin living in the UK called Usman Khan, who had been convicted of a terror act in 2012 and let out of prison halfway through a 16-year sentence, murdered two young people – a man and woman both in their twenties – at a meeting nearby of criminologists that he had been attending to discuss the merits of rehabilitating and releasing prisoners. He then ran on to the bridge where he was subdued by passers-by before being shot dead by the police.

The supreme irony of this terrible event was that Khan ended the lives of the very people who were defending his human rights in the belief that he had been rehabilitated and had changed his life. They were amongst others at the meeting who - as idealists believing in compassion and redemption – were guided by moral principles and values like the possibility of transformation and forgiveness that so many regard as essential in a civilised society.

Further details of the incident do not need to be repeated here. But this unbearably sad case, with two young people’s lives snuffed out by a person who, it seems, had been deemed a model of what rehabilitation can achieve after passing a de-radicalisation course, brings to the fore yet again the complex moral conundrum about redemption in the face of evil.

Forgiveness is, of course, at the core of Christian belief in the virtues of faith, hope and charity. But this incident has reignited the debate about the desirability and practicality of redemption to enable offenders to take their place in society once more.

The purpose of prison is to punish criminals, isolate them from society and to deter others. But rehabilitation is also important both on humanitarian grounds and also to try to prevent recidivism. In Britain, automatic early release was made statutory in 1991 under a Conservative government for prisoners serving shorter sentences. Reportedly, this was done partly to relieve overcrowding in prisons. It was extended in 2008 by a Labour government to include those convicted of the most serious and violent crimes.

It is instructive that the UK authorities declared at one point that preventing homicides by those under the supervision of the state should be a priority. However, if early release is mandated automatically halfway through a sentence, it must be assumed that there is little the prison or probation officials, or even the courts, can do apart from carefully monitoring those concerned after their release – and this is against a background of public criticism of institutional naivety by the so-called experts who seem all too often to have the wool pulled over their eyes in dealing with the early release of prisoners.

In face of public concern, the Conservative Party’s manifesto for this week’s General Election declares “…..we will add 10,000 more prison places. We will end automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes”. Many voters will support that, but it is surely right that, in respecting human rights, rehabilitation should remain an important part of Britain’s prison system and that those serving their time in prison should be given a chance to redeem themselves.

Moreover, there will be exceptional circumstances when offenders may have been driven to wrongdoing through deprivation or some sort of personal damage so the criteria for early release should always be defined with care, and proper account should also be taken of the rights of the victims.

It is interesting to note that prison and probation service officials generally support rehabilitation and some will doubtless be opposed as a matter of principle to the abolition of automatic early release. But it is equally important that those concerned should adopt a hard-headed and realistic approach in their assessment of sometimes persistent violent criminals who may even have become more brutalised while in prison.

Notwithstanding all this, the prime task of any government is to provide national security and to ensure the safety of its citizens. So the increasing acts of terrorism taking place in the UK, since the horrific attacks in London in 2005 that resulted in 56 deaths and some 700 people injured, have introduced another dimension to the debate. Most people now accept that those who have been radicalised and have signed up to pursue terrorism fall into a new category of criminal behaviour. Driven as they are by deeply-held beliefs and an ideology whose stated aim is to implant Sharia principles in countries like Britain, they cannot be rehabilitated. Those who are convicted terrorists constitute a threat to the peace and to law-abiding citizens and, as dedicated fanatics, should never be let out of prison on licence – and their murderous ideology needs to be confronted.

It has, of course, now become clear that those who claimed that the London Bridge killer had been de-radicalised and had forsworn violence were deluded. Such terrorists have to be dealt with differently and more harshly.

Nonetheless, the belief of idealists in the indestructible power of love – and their efforts to seek rehabilitation of those prisoners who, unlike terrorists, deserve consideration –- should surely be recognised and supported. Despite the wickedness perpetrated by the London Bridge killer and the resulting grief and misery, it is essential, for all our sakes, that one particular act of evil should not call into question such beliefs and efforts.

Everything still to play for as Britain goes to the polls

After such a long lead-up, it is hard to believe that Britain’s eagerly anticipated General Election is just two days away. This Thursday, December 12, the nation goes to the polls for the third time in recent years – following the votes in 2015 and 2017 and the EU referendum in 2016 – in what is being dubbed as the most significant election for the last half century. All the hype; the speeches; the TV debates with everyone interrupting, point scoring and talking over one another; the endless photo shots of politicians indulging in unusual activities with the public to show how in touch they are with ordinary people; and the door-to-door canvassing – all of it is almost over and the candidates now nervously await the verdict of the people.

This time, however, the whole show is particularly serious stuff because the outcome of this historic election could shape the country not only for the next few years but for decades to come. The basic choice between the two main parties – the Conservatives and Labour – is continuation of the existing free market capitalist system or a hard-Left socialist agenda which critics say could wreck the UK economy.

It is also about the difference between securing Brexit, which a majority voted for in the referendum, by January 31 or dither and indecision and, possibly, a reversal of the whole Brexit process.

I last wrote about the election in this column two weeks ago and reported then that the latest polls suggested a comfortable majority of around 50 seats for sitting Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party. The polls have remained about the same in the meantime, though the Tories’ lead has widened slightly since there has been no late Labour surge. But I noted then that anything could happen at the last minute to upset this prediction. Furthermore, pollsters are often wrong. In 2015, they suggested a hung parliament and there was a Tory majority. In the EU referendum they foretold a narrow win for Remain and Leave won with a majority of over one million votes, and in 2017 they got it wrong again in predicting a Tory majority and the nation ended up with a hung parliament. Then, in the US, how could people forget that hardly anyone thought that Donald Trump could possibly win the 2016 presidential election.

This time, I believe the difference that points to a Tory overall majority is attributable to Brexit, with many people liking the party’s message “Get Brexit done”. Because of this, some 80 normally safe Labour-held seats are on the verge of falling to the Tories. There remains the possibility, however, of so-called tactical voting by the supporters of other parties to keep the Tories out, and this poses an uncertainty hanging over Mr Johnson’s chances of success. But his announcements about extra spending on the National Health Service, welfare, the police and education and a commitment to introduce a new Australian-style points system for immigration are also all resonating with the electorate. For his part, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is under pressure to explain how Labour will fund its massive spending and borrowing plans, together with free broadband for all, discounted train fares and introduction of a 4-day week. His proposed mass nationalisation – including water, energy and the railways – together with higher taxes will not be popular and he is also under heavy fire over the party’s anti-Semitism. Moreover, Labour have made clear they are not in favour of business, with the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (Minister of Finance) saying, incautiously, that part of his job description is to overthrow capitalism.

It now seems that more and more people are beginning to recognise that Boris Johnson has the fight, tenacity and boldness to make Britain successful post-Brexit, though there are still some who do not trust him. So everything is still to play for. A hung parliament is possible if other parties like the Liberal Democrats – a progressive, pro-European party with a pro-business agenda – perform better than expected and the Tories do less well than anticipated and there is tactical voting. In that event, Mr Corbyn could form alliances with other parties and become Prime Minister. However, there is a large body of voters who want to stop him reaching No 10 Downing Street since they recognise that the danger of taking Britain back to the bad old days of socialism in the 1970s is all too real.

Overall, the evidence points to a victory for the Tories with a reasonable working majority which they will need in order to deliver Brexit and meet their other manifesto commitments. Once all the results are in by Friday, I would be surprised if Boris Johnson is not still Prime Minister. I happen to believe that that will be the best outcome for the country.

Tusk’s behaviour more suited to the school playground

I wonder whether others were as irritated as I was following the much publicised so-called mocking of President Trump by the Canadian and French leaders at a recent Buckingham Palace reception for the 70th anniversary of NATO. Having viewed several times the video clip of the exchanges between these two, who were also talking to their British and Dutch colleagues as well as Princess Anne, they were to my mind little more than poking some fun at him for being late because of attending a press conference. What’s more, his name was not even mentioned. It was all pretty low key stuff – unwisely indiscreet perhaps but not really much more than cocktail party chitchat.

Why I find this episode irritating is that the media have made so much of such a trivial incident and beamed the video around the world instead of concentrating on reporting the substance of what was an important international gathering.

What was much worse, though similarly trivial, was the action of former European Council president, Donald Tusk, in putting on social media a photo of himself making a gun gesture with his hand up against the back of an unsuspecting Trump during the NATO summit. It appears this has caused something of an uproar. Apparently, making a gun-like hand gesture of that sort can be considered in the US a criminal offence in certain circumstances. But, whether or not that is true, it was a disrespectful and childish thing to do that was more suitable for the school playground; and then to publicise it on social media, as if proud of such a silly act, simply compounded the error. One commentator wrote “What a vile, pathetic, petty little man you are” – and to think this was the person who led the Brexit negotiations with the UK. What poor judgement and what a sorry tale.