What happened
Britain has expanded its official definition of terrorism. The broader application has led to the state and legislation banning novels, preventing panel discussions, and harassing elderly people. Past experience shows that excessively far-reaching state measures undermined the USA's counter-terrorism work. Several surveillance systems have also been forced to shut down after collecting large amounts of irrelevant material.
Our analysis
When the liberal debate raises alarms that terror laws are misfiring, the examples are often about old ladies and banned books. But no one should be fooled. When the state makes the definition of terror arbitrary and boundless, it is never old Swedes with suburban gardens who are hit first. It is new Swedes who have to empty their pockets on the bus and explain their associations.
Sweden is rapidly moving in the same direction. Politicians from right to left are competing to give the police broader mandates, stop-and-search zones, and preventative wiretapping. The result will not be increased security. The result will be that entire groups are singled out as potential security threats and turned into second-class citizens in their own country.
Chasing everything means in practice missing what is dangerous. When suspicion is made the norm against ordinary citizens, the extremists win and the rule of law loses.
Explained
Terrorism legislation specifies which crimes and acts are deemed terrorism and which special coercive measures authorities are permitted to use.