Ariana Grande said she had “no words”. But in its own way, her short tweet after the bombing of young fans leaving her Manchester concert oozed eloquence and humanity.
For she also stated that she felt “broken … from the bottom of my heart, I am so so sorry” after Salman Abedi, 22-year-old Manchester-born of Libyan origin, murdered 22 people, including children and teenagers, on Monday night.
Grande had no cause to apologise, despite the offensive remarks of the “alt-right” British writer Milo Yiannopoulis, accusing the singer of being “ferociously pro-immigrant, pro-Islam and anti-America”. Nor do Britain’s overwhelmingly lawful Muslims bear culpability for an act proclaimed, wickedly and falsely, in their name.
Abedi’s ghastly last act of a life without value had nothing to do with Islam except in a distorted interpretation swallowed whole from whatever indoctrinating elements infiltrated his mind.
His parents were welcomed by the UK as refugees from the tyranny of Muammar Qaddafi. It must be hoped they now feel abject shame. His father and two brothers have been arrested, in the UK and Libya, and we must await the outcome of those developments.
But however blameless they and Abedi’s three siblings may all be shown to be, it is no longer unreasonable to expect the sins of the terrorist to be visited upon friends and relatives.
Some of the young men – or women – lured into extremism would be unmoved by the knowledge that their involvement in atrocities, planned or executed, will inevitably bring uncomfortable consequences for their families. They are, after all, brainwashed into regarding natural relatives as unworthy of obedience or respect.
But where a shred of love survives, some might stop short of acts likely to lead to the detention of family members and friends, long hours of questioning and, in appropriate circumstances, deportation. A society under threat is entitled to resort to rough justice.
Abedi’s case also reminds us once again of the compelling argument for some system of internment, detention without trial when legitimate suspicion cannot be proved.
In common with so many who pass from fanatical views to terrorism, he turns out to have been “known” to the police. Simply by asking questions, reporters have dug out ample anecdotal evidence of his radicalisation.
Round-the-clock surveillance is impractical without unimaginable increases in the intelligence services’ resources. If, however, there seems genuine ground for suspicion, as appears yet again to have been the case in Manchester, they can surely be rounded up and properly investigated.
An empowered panel of judges could decide each case on its own merits, ordering releases and even compensation where justified. Equally, any suspect with foreign or dual nationality should face the possibility of being expelled, in some cases – rough justice again – with family members.
Internment was not a success in Northern Ireland during Britain’s fight against the Irish Republican Army. Only a refined model, learning from past failures, would stand a chance of working now.
ISIL strives to make Muslims feel victimised. In the interests of justice as well as fairness, extremists of non-Muslim origin should accordingly be no less liable to imprisonment without trial. Consider the cases of those from far-right European movements with truly sinister connections and outlooks.
But the broad principle is that society must at last begin to defend itself more rigorously.
No one should ever be hounded for disagreeing with their country’s domestic or foreign policies. However the only acceptable manner for expressing dissent is by peaceful means.
In so turbulent a world, it beggars belief that individuals are able to leave others in no doubt about pro-ISIL sentiments without attracting more than passing interest from the authorities.
Colin Randall is a former executive editor of The National
