Don’t refer to ‘Islamist terrorism’, says watchdog

The Government’s terror watchdog has declared that it is “fundamentally wrong” to use the phrase “Islamist terrorism” to describe attacks carried out in Britain and elsewhere.

Max Hill QC said that the word terrorism should not be attached “to any of the world religions” and that the term “Daesh-inspired terrorism” should be used instead.

His comments put him at odds with Prime Minister Theresa May and the Home Secretary Amber Rudd, who have both spoken about the threat posed by “Islamist terrorists”.

The head of MI5, Andrew Parker, also linked Islamism with terrorism when he warned of an “intense UK threat from Islamist extremists”. But in evidence to Parliament’s joint committee on human rights, Mr Hill said that such language was wrong as he responded to a question from Labour MP Karen Buck.

She said that Mr Hill’s recent report on the operation of terrorism legislation had acknowledged that “Daesh and Daesh-inspired terrorism is the greatest threat” but asked him, in light of dangers posed by Irish and far-right terrorism, “whether there is any downside that the current debate does tend to focus largely on Islamic terrorism”.

Mr Hill replied the legal definition of terrorism “mentions religion but mentions no particular religion nor sect within a religion”.

He then overlooked Ms Buck’s reference to “Islamic terrorism” and told her: “You are accurate in using the phrase ‘Daesh-inspired terrorism’ where many other commentators use the words ‘Islamist terrorism’.

"It is fundamentally wrong to attach the word terrorism to any of the world religions. Put that another way round: those who adhere to any of the great religions or none can be terrorists within the definition.”

Mr Hill’s remarks follow his participation last year in a round-table discussion with London Muslims after the Finsbury Park attack where he was told that many felt that it was wrong to link their religion to terrorism.

But his criticism of the language used will reinforce his reputation for making contentious interventions. They follow the suggestion last year by Mr Hill, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, that some jihadis returning from Syria and Iraq should escape prosecution as they were “naive”.