( CNN ) -- About a year after the 2005 London bombings , right-wing British journalist Melanie Phillips published a book that she called `` Londonistan . '' It was an extended lament about what she called the decline of British values and the destructive consequences of multiculturalism . U.S. security agencies and others began to call the British capital Londonistan -- and only partly in jest . London , one of the great cities of the world that transcend nationality , had attracted dissidents from many countries , but particularly from Arab states that might have treated them harshly had they dared to voice their opposition to the ruling cliques at home . The Londonistan label was meant to draw a parallel between what was happening in London and what had happened in Afghanistan , where many opponents of the regimes of Muslim majority countries had congregated , first to join a war against the Soviet occupation , and then to fight a broader enemy . Now , Douglas Murray has written a similar article in the most recent edition of The Spectator , a well-respected British periodical , following the gruesome killing in Syria of the American journalist James Foley , apparently by a British member of ISIS . Murray argues that the nationality of the executioner should come as no surprise , given the misguided tolerance of extremism in Britain . It is true that British citizens have taken part in terrorist attacks , or attempted to , since the rise of global terrorism in the 1990s . But to suggest that Foley 's beheading was somehow related to the laxness or timidity of the British security authorities , or a decline of the British state more generally , is going too far . It is also the wrong way to look at the problem . Britain , like the United States , has a well-deserved reputation for acting in accordance with the rule of law . And by and large , British justice is fair and impartial . That is surely one of the reasons why so many people have tried to enter the country . Those who have faced persecution at home have found the freedoms of expression and assembly denied them elsewhere available in every corner of London and other British cities . And British life has been enriched by their presence . Certainly it 's led to social tensions . New communities establish traditions that the original population finds strange and even threatening . Immigrants seem to keep themselves apart and are prepared to work longer for less . Originally the government aimed to assimilate these newcomers , but realized that defining `` Britishness '' was hard enough for the British , let alone a concept that a new arrival could understand . Integration became the new objective , but this too is difficult in a society that 's under strain and believes the best policy is a clear set of rules that still allow people to find their own way within them . Committing terrorist acts is not within the rules . And recent British legislation has tried to set firmer and clearer rules that make plotting terrorist acts a crime -- however hard it may be to identify a crime before it has been committed . This may help to deter and prevent terrorism , or it may not . It is always hard to measure what did not happen as a result of government action . The best way to deter terrorism is not to introduce ever-more draconian laws -- which inevitably miss their targets but affect everyone else -- but to continue to hold true to the values that terrorists seek to challenge . In the dark world of the self-described Islamic State , the law and its implementation are arbitrarily applied by those who hold the guns . There is no appeal against them . It is a world of intimidation and dictatorship , similar to but worse than the totalitarian states established by Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad . Some British people may feel alienated from society in the United Kingdom ; they may believe that they lack opportunity . But they are lucky to have the opportunity to say so , and to advocate for change . They would not have that in the `` Islamic State . '' They would be dead . British people may have gone to join the `` Islamic State ' '' hoping to find a new sense of purpose and self-expression , and perhaps the British fighters associated with Foley 's death believe they have succeeded . But they are not the product of the United Kingdom . They are the product of something far deeper , rooted in the evolution of their own societies and the transitional period between immigrant parents and integrated children . If society is not fluid , and does not accept the rough ride that fluidity can bring , it will not move forward . Terrorism , as expressed by Foley 's executioner , is reactionary and backward looking . It offers nothing to anyone . The `` Islamic State '' will never attract support from more than the handful of people who run it , and of the few hundred British people who may think it offers Nirvana and have gone to join in , I predict that the great majority will sooner or later look back at what they left and wish they were still there , however imperfect the conditions . Freedom comes at a price , but it is what we are fighting for as we combat the `` Islamic State . ''
UK 's tolerance of extremism leads to acts like James Foley 's beheading , article suggests . Richard Barrett says that view goes too far and more draconian laws are n't the answer . Barrett : Extremism is linked to immigrants ' societies and their transition to integration . He says UK rule of law and freedom of expression will win over allure of ISIS .