Put 'proportionality' in the rubbish bin
by Jamie Bartlett
I was at Theresa May's lecture at RUSI today, about the government's counter-terrorism effort. It was actually quite good. She made a number of good comments.
Firstly she stressed the importance of dealing with Muslims not through the prism of security, but as the sensible, grown up citizens they are. She restated a commitment to terrorism prevention work, but that it would not be within the remit of the security services. She reaffirmed earlier statements about always basing counter-terrorism on the rule of law. Above all she emphasised the importance of creating a more integrated, cohesive society.
The only problem I had with any of this was her use of language. Our counter-terrorism work, she said, would always be based on the principles of 'proportionality, necessity and effectiveness'. The second and third of these are fine. There are too many counter-terrorism projects that are not effective at all. Some things, like obsessive surveillance by local authorities, are really not necessary.
Expect these themes to be prominent in the review of counter-terrorism later this year. But, proportionality? Proportionality, especially when it comes to security and liberty, is a deeply political word. The proportional use of coercion to shore up national security is something that the left and right will often disagree on as it is a values driven trade off - not a technical one. Bland language to mask such decisions is not helpful. Consign this word to the rubbish bin!
Will Davies
'Proportionality' is quite a devious political and epistemological concept in this case. Terrorism is a 'known unknown'. It is unquantifiable, in a way that serves the interests of both states and 'terrorists': both have free reign to define the scale of the threat, but can never provide any actual evidence for this scale. One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist (or even Adam Curtis) to recognise that states and terrorists have a shared interest in defining the threat level as a high.
Policing, however, is not a known unknown. It is tangible and measurable. Hence, to define one's security response to terrorism as 'proportionate' is to state a ratio between one thing that can be quantified, and another that can't. It's like saying that the power of the Vatican is 'proportionate' to the glory of God. Like you say, this simply excludes politics.