According to a government watchdog, Britain might need to implement anti-subversion laws to combat threats from nations intent on undermining democracy.
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of legislation regarding state threats, is expected to present his report this week, focusing on the application of counter-terrorism laws in addressing state interference.
Last December, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper tasked Mr. Hall with exploring whether aspects of counter-terrorism legislation could be adapted to tackle security threats posed by foreign states.
Specifically, he was requested to evaluate which legal tools would be effective against “highly aggressive state entities” like Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
In an address to the Policy Exchange think tank on Monday, Mr. Hall will emphasize that the internet serves as an ideal platform for intelligence officers to “directly recruit, task, and compensate individuals”.
He will note, “Young individuals who may have once found inspiration in a terrorist cause are increasingly inclined to perform acts of sabotage for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s Russia,” during the John Creaney Memorial Lecture.
These recruits are approached in much the same manner, often by groups active on Telegram, an encrypted messaging application, he adds.
Telegram app logo. File pic: Reuters
“I contemplate the measures that may eventually be necessary to safeguard democracy from itself. What do I mean by that? I refer to counter-subversion,” he plans to assert.
Counter-subversion was once a component of MI5’s responsibilities during the 1950s and 1970s but lost favor, largely due to associations with McCarthyism and the infiltration of domestic protest groups by undercover police, according to Mr. Hall.
Read more from Sky News:
Luke Littler criticizes vandals who targeted his van
Boy tragically dies following ‘altercation’ at the beach
Join Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim for The World every Wednesday
Tap to follow
New legislation may be necessary, though these proposals must include legal safeguards.
“If I were a foreign intelligence officer, I would certainly aim to instill a sense of self-hatred and historical disdain within the UK,” he states during his speech.
“I would challenge the very definition of womanhood, framing masculinity as toxic.
“I would encourage white individuals to feel ashamed while creating grievances among non-white individuals. I would seek to promote antisemitism in the political landscape.
“My goal would be to inflict both immediate and long-lasting harm to the UK’s national security by manipulating the nation’s freedoms and openness through funding, social media exploitation, and entryism.”
Supporters of Russia often find common ground with “lone actors” by portraying themselves as champions of “Christian civilization” while presenting Russia as a true guardian of a waning Western civilization, he claims.
Foreign intelligence operatives could already be leveraging social media as a “fertile ground for divisive issues”.
They might employ online “sextortion” tactics to gather kompromat and coerce individuals into compliance, while also potentially intervening in Brexit, the push for Scottish independence, or the autonomy of overseas territories.
They could also endorse contentious foreign policy topics like Gaza or propagate the false narrative that the Southport killer was a Muslim immigrant, according to Mr. Hall.
Foreign intelligence operatives might also support controversial foreign policy issues such as Gaza. File Pic: Reuters
They might promote extreme environmentalism or policies aimed at disrupting rivals’ economies to “sow discord or hopelessness,” Mr. Hall notes.
Content moderation, which involves removing or restricting access to specific content, is “not going to sufficiently tackle the unprecedented access to impressionable minds that the internet provides,” he states.
Legal provisions that have demonstrated efficacy in managing domestic terrorist groups may need modification to address entities posing state threats, preventing them from promoting their agendas and seeking support both online and offline, he stresses in his speech.
One potential solution is the “foreign interference” offense under the newly established National Security Act 2023, although proving the involvement of a “foreign hand” can prove challenging, Mr. Hall states.
Another approach could involve fostering “social resilience against disinformation” or adopting a “Cold War mentality” to detect subversion.
“But what if it becomes essential to delve deeper? What if there’s a need to investigate the financial sources behind protest movements?”
Mr. Hall queries whether it might be crucial to “introduce legislation, in the interest of national security, prohibiting extremism or subversion.”
He poses whether it would be advisable to enact laws preventing Muslim Brotherhood candidates from participating in elections.
The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist social movement initiated in Egypt in the 1920s, is also linked to Hamas.
Such legislative efforts would face challenges, he acknowledges, as they would need to be grounded on universally applicable principles—like separatism, hatred-driven extremism, or subversion—that have historically stumped politicians.
If such measures were to be enacted, they would “require robust safeguards in the form of judicial oversight, unencumbered by excessive deference to the executive and prepared to rectify errors when they occur,” Mr. Hall concludes.