Tommy Robinson is Innocent? The Far-Right and Freedom of Expression

 

Pegida UK supporters stage silent march in Birmingham

Globally far-right groups are claiming their freedom of expression is being curtailed by the state and various social media companies when they perceive posts are violating their hate speech code. Since Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League in the UK and now right wing activist was imprisoned in May 2018, the arrest and subsequent imprisonment has been cited in many video blogs from right-wing commentators globally to show how western states, in particular the UK, are adopting a ‘police state’ approach when it comes to dealing with the far-right. Along with various court cases, this blog looks at freedom of expression legislation in Australia, Canada, the UK and the US and assesses when far-right narratives cross the line from being simply offensive to race hate crime. This is an extract from a peer reviewed academic journal article I have written that is being published soon.

ECHR logous bill of rights

Freedom of Expression

In a liberal democracy freedom of expression is cherished right allowing for a myriad of views to be expressed without fear or sanction from the state and that includes views of the far-right. There has been a movement where people who are offended by comments not in line with their own and, due to their company policies, internet social media providers have become increasingly influential on what can and what cannot be said or, more importantly, what values and beliefs a person can hold in society. This development is dangerously impinging on the right to freedom of expression. In most European countries this right is governed by article 10 in the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and article 11 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (CFRF). Both of these rights contain similar wording in that the right includes holding opinions and the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference from state authorities. Article 11 CFRF adds that freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. In the US this right is enshrined in the first amendment of the 1791 Bill of Rights stating that Congress shall not make laws abridging the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press. In Canada section 2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.

Australia does not have a statutory or constitutional charter or Bill of rights as rights and freedoms are protected under common law. As such the courts have the power to provide significant protection of human rights principles. In carrying out this function in Coco v The Queen the Australian High Court restated the principle that Parliament is presumed not to have intended to limit fundamental rights saying:

‘The courts should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere with fundamental rights. Such an intention must be clearly manifested by unmistakable and unambiguous language.’

In Electrolux Home Products v Australian Workers’ Union Chief Justice Gleeson said:

‘The presumption is not merely a common sense guide to what a parliament in a liberal democracy is likely to have intended; it is a working hypothesis, the existence of which is known both to parliament and the courts, upon which statutory language will be interpreted. The hypothesis is an aspect of the rule of law.’

This presumption includes the principle that fundamental rights are recognised by the common law. Compared to rights protected in statutory form, common law rights are negative rights and can be eroded via statute. This could explain why Australia incorporated the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR) in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. Article 19 ICCPR states everyone has the right to freedom of expression, adding the right includes freedom to speak, receive and impart information of all kinds. It appears that the Australian right to freedom of expression, as does the US Bill of Rights, has no constraints on what and what cannot be said.

In many jurisdciaitons freedom of expression is not an absolute right to say whatever you want. For example, article 10 ECHR is a qualified right where the state can interfere with that right provided it is prescribed in law and necessary in a democratic society when it is:
1. in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety;
2. for the prevention of disorder or crime;
3. for the protection of health or morals;
4. for the protection of the reputation or rights of others;
5. for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or,
6. for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

In the CFRF article 52 allows limitations to this right, but only where it is provided for in law and the limitation is both proportionate and necessary to meet the objects of general interest of the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. To put some context into what is acceptable in relation to freedom of expression in law, in the UK case Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions Sedley LJ said:

‘Freedom of speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.’

When interpreting article 10 ECHR the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has adopted a similar view. In Handyside v UK the ECtHR held that freedom of expression is an essential foundation of a democratic society and the right is not only applicable to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as indifference or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any section of the population. The ECtHR has tempered freedom of expression in Erbaken v Turkey saying that tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundation of a democratic, pluralistic society. The court added:

‘That being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance …’

In essence, while some will be offended by extremists’ comments, provided those comments do not glorify or provoke violence, or, promote hatred, they have to be accepted as being part of the rich tapestry of views and beliefs that creates a liberal democracy. The issue is assessing when those views, expressions and opinions cross the line of what is acceptable to when it becomes criminal behaviour and falls outside the parameters of what is acceptable under this right.

Differentiating When Far-Right Views Move From Being Simply Offensive, Irritating, Contentious, Eccentric, Heretical, Unwelcome and Provocative to Criminal?

National Action 2Britain-First-badgeAtomwaffen

As social media accounts displaying hate content are suspended or deleted, prima facie there does appear to be credence to the far-right’s claim that freedom of expression is under attack and being curtailed in liberal democracies. This can be seen in the responses and outcry to various comments posted on far-right social media sites or by individuals who are associated or inspired by the far-right narrative where accounts are suspended or individuals are requested, even directed to delete posts deemed to be offensive. When applying the far-right narrative to Sedley LJ’s judgement in Redmond Bate, for many it will be irritating, contentious, eccentric, heretical, unwelcome and provocative. Apart from some neo-Nazi national socialist groups that glorify or advocate violence and expressions that amount to race hate crime, the far-right narrative, as odious as it is, should be allowed in a liberal democracy as should any other extremist narrative that does not advocate violence or hate crime. By doing so the majority will see through the narrative and reject, even ridicule it.

Nick griffinon question time

An example of this was in October 2009 in the UK when the British National Party’s (BNP) former leader Nick Griffin, appeared on the BBC’s Question Time programme. There was outrage that the BBC was allowing Griffin and the BNP a platform to air their views on a high profile programme with a wide audience. Having two elected Members of the European Parliament and large number of elected local councillors at the time, the BNP was seen as a political party that should have a platform to discuss their views. Prior to the programme Griffin boasted his appearance would propel the BNP ‘into the big time’. During the programme Griffin got tied up in knots as he tried to answer questions on various topics, resulting in him being ridiculed and even laughed as people saw through his far right rhetoric, which with each answer Griffin became increasingly incomprehensible. It could be argued this was the start of the demise of the BNP. There are times to let people have their say and in doing so it allows people to see right through their argument, which is what happened on this occasion.

facebook logoTwitter logo 2

There are positives in how social media companies are adopting a hard line in what materials posted by groups and individuals they consider to be hateful against others. Twitter actively targets any group or persons who contravene their policy on hateful conduct and a number of US far-right groups have had their accounts suspended. For example, after posting a number of tweets in relation their far-right views, the Traditional Workers’ Party and the American Nazi Party final tweet said, ‘inevitable that we will be banned at the weekend.’ In relation to Britain First, Facebook finally deleted its account in March 2018 because Britain First continually violated Facebook’s Community Standards. Facebook were initially reluctant to delete Britain First’s page as they were cautious about removing political speech with Britain First being a political party. YouTube have also blocked video’s posted by far-right groups and in 2018 YouTube banned the US neo-Nazi group Atomwaffen Division’s YouTube channel for violating YouTube’s hate speech policies, a move that may have been triggered by the fact Atomwaffen have been linked to five murders and an alleged bomb plot in the US.
When dealing with groups and individuals who post comments in line with national socialist ideology and any other forms of extremist ideology such as Islamist views, social media companies should be applauded for taking this action. The problem comes when what is deemed as contravening the companies’ hateful conduct policy because they deem it offensive, contentious or provocative, but is legal under the freedom of expression. An example of how freedom of expression in the UK is potentially being fettered is how social media companies, mainstream media and UK state agencies have dealt with Tommy Robinson. In April 2016 Twitter permanently suspended Robinson’s account after he tweeted ‘Islam promotes killing people’. In the tweet Robinson was referring to a hundred verses in the Qur’an that incites Muslims to violence against non-Muslims. Due to the content of these tweets, Twitter said they violated its policies on hateful conduct. This raises the question if Robinson’s suspension is an example of social media companies, outside a court of law, restrict freedom of expression and decide what can and cannot be expressed. This is a serious step as these companies are in effect taking the law into their own hands. The suspension of Robinson’s account can be differentiated with Twitter’s suspension of Britain First’s Twitter account and that of its leaders.

Jayda Fransen court case

In relation to Britain First, Paul Golding and Jeyda Fransen, the content of their tweets were written with intent to spread, incite, promote or justify hatred against Muslims based on an intolerance of their religion, which would fall under the parameters of race hate crime. No one would question the decision of social media companies to delete or suspend groups who express views glorifying or influencing individuals to carry out acts of violence. This seems to be the situation with Atomwaffen as the influence far-right social media accounts can have on vulnerable individuals cannot be overestimated. In relation to Britain First, it was a phrase Thomas Mair shouted as he shot the MP Jo Cox. Also, the behaviour and criminal actions of Britain First’s leaders could have been a factor in Twitter and Facebook suspending the accounts of the group and its leaders. Darren Osbourne was convicted of terrorist related murder and attempt murder after driving a van in Muslim worshippers outside Finsbury Park in June 2017. During his trial in February 2018 evidence was given revealing in the weeks before the attack that among others far-right sites, Osborne was following Britain First and Tommy Robinson on social media claiming it influenced him to carry out the attack. When being interviewed by the mainstream media, in his writings and on his social media sites, Tommy Robinson has always been careful never to accuse all Muslims or Islam per se as responsible for terrorist acts or criminal activity. As Sedley LJ said in Redmond Bate, ‘Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having’.

EDL-tommy-robinson

Especially in relation to Tommy Robinson the debate on whether the UK authorities are restricting the right to freedom of expression is ongoing. In May 2018 Robinson was recording live on his Facebook account outside Leeds Crown Court coverage of a trial involving Muslim defendant’s accused of grooming, raping and sexually abusing young girls. He was arrested for causing a Breach of the Peace and later imprisoned for contempt of court where it was claimed he made comments that risked the trial to collapse. At the time of his sentencing Robinson was serving a suspended sentence for contempt of court during an earlier rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court. Perceived as the UK restricting freedom of expression, Robinson’s imprisonment resulted in protests in June 2018 in Whitehall, London, a change.org petition for his release that received nearly 500,000 signatures and given support from Donald Trump junior who said, ‘Don’t let America follow in these footsteps’, as well as Geert Wilders posting a video on his Twitter account calling Robinson’s imprisonment ‘an absolute disgrace’. Robinson’s imprisonment has also internationally galvanised other right wing activists such as Lauren Southern in Canada and Black Pigeon in the US. Both have YouTube channels that attract many views. On the topic of Robinson’s imprisonment Black Pigeon’s video blog attracted 174,600 views and Lauren Southern’s attracted over 800,000 views with comments mostly supporting Robinson. In Tommy Robinson’s case he has not glorified or encouraged violence and as obnoxious as they are, he has literally posted his observations on how he sees various situations.

Two examples of how comments come outside the parameters for freedom expression can be seen in two ECtHR cases. In Norwood v UK Norwood was a Regional Organiser for the BNP and between November 2001 and January 2002 he displayed a large poster in the window of his flat with a photograph of New York’s World Trade Centre in flames with the words ‘Islam out of Britain – Protect British People’. Following a complaint the police removed the poster. Failing in the UK courts that his freedom of expression had been curtailed, Norwood appealed to the ECtHR. The Court found no violation of article 10 ECHR saying the poster was a vehement attack on a religious group, intimating the group as a whole were involved in an act of terrorism. In Berkacam v Belgium Berkacam was the leader and spokesperson of the organisation ‘Sharia4Belgium’ where he made remarks on YouTube videos that incited others to hatred, violence and discrimination towards non-Muslims. The ECtHR held the comments were incompatible with the ECHR’s values of tolerance, social peace and non-discrimination. In both of these cases the comments were aimed at a whole group, not individuals within a group, holding the whole group as responsible for various acts. This is why Britain First’s social media content would be outside the bounds of freedom of expression and rightly contravene the social media companies’ policies on hateful content as they portray Islam and all Muslims as an evil in society. In relation to Tommy Robinson this is not the case. He never says all Muslims or Islam as a whole is to blame for problems in the UK only particular Muslims who commit either terrorist or criminal offences. His main argument is little mainstream media coverage is given to certain trials involving Muslim suspects, especially in sexual offence trials. Admittedly he has strident views on Islam that could be seen as heretical, but they would fall within the legal parameters of freedom of expression. Using the imprisoning and harassing of Robinson only fuels the flames of complaint by the far-right their freedom of expression is being curtailed by the state. To take back control of the far-right’s position on this argument it might be preferable, when not glorifying or encouraging violence, or inciting race hate, to allow far-right activists like Robinson to continue to use their social media sites. Returning to the example of Nick Griffin on the BBC’s Question Time programme, one should not be fearful of providing them with a platform to air their views as most people will see through the arguments they make. However, if they cross the line into hate crime that is a different matter.

My terrorism book cover

Issues related to this can be found in my book published in March 2018 ‘Terrorism: Law and Policy’ by Routledge

David Anderson QC Report into Manchester Bombing and other Terrorist Incidents 2017: What have we learnt?

david anderson 1

On Tuesday 5th December the UK’s Home Secretary, Amber Rudd gave details from the report into the terrorist incidents the UK have suffered in 2017 conducted by the UK’s former independent reviewer for terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC. The report examined if the UK’s Security Service (MI5) and counter-terrorism police could have done more to prevent the attacks from happening and if any blame could laid at their door.
In essence David Anderson found no great culpability on the actions by either MI5 or the police. He did find the following:

westminster atatck 1

Khalid Masood (Westminster Bridge attack March 2017) – he was an MI5 subject of interest between Feb to Oct 2012and between 2012 – 2016 he was linked intermittently to Al Muhajiroun (a Salafist jihadist group linked to international terrorism that is proscribed in the UK). There was no intelligence indicating that he was planning an attack;

manchester arena attackabedi

Salmen Abedi (Manchester Arena bombing May 2017) – he had a criminal record limited to theft related offences. He became a subject of interest for one day in Oct 2015 due to contacts he had with an Islamic state figure in Libya. In May Abedi was identified a person who needed further consideration with a meeting to consider him planned for the 3st May, nine days after the bombing. When Abedi returned to the UK from a trip to Libya on the 18th May he had not been flagged so no port stop under Schedule 7 Terrorism Act 2000 was carried out on his return. This is led to David Anderson saying that with hindsight the intelligence MI5 had on Abedi could, ‘…have been highly relevant to the planned attack’ but at the time it was received the intelligence was not fully appreciated by MI5 with David Anderson adding that if the ‘cards had fallen differently’ the attack could have been avoided;

BRITAIN-ATTACKSKhareem Butt

Khuram Butt (London Bridge and Borough Market attack, June 2017) – he was known and was a principal subject in an MI5 investigation, Operation Hawthorn. He was known to be active in recruiting people to Islamic State (IS) and planning trips to IS’ self-proclaimed caliphate that existed in Syria. In mid-2015 intelligence was received that Butt aspired to carry out an attack in the UK but following risk assessments carried out, by Sept 2015 Butt was considered to have a strong intent but a weak capability to carry out the attack;

Finsbury Park attackDarren-Osborne4

Darren Osbourne (Finsbury Park attack July 2017) – there was no intelligence held by either MI5 or the police that he was going to commit the attack.

Could more have been done?

Certainly in relation Abedi, if there were a handful of investigations ongoing in the UK then maybe there could be a greater degree of culpability on the part of MI5 and the police but this is not the case, something that David Anderson recognised. Currently in the UK there are approximately 500 ongoing investigations into 3,000 individuals, with 20,000 individuals in the intelligence system graded of serious concern. This is not counting individuals who are on a system but who have been assessed as a low threat. These figures alone reveal the enormity of the task facing the UK’s security services and police in preventing terrorist attacks from happening. As there is only limited resources in both staffing levels and equipment priority has to be given to what the analysis of the vast intelligence/information received that reveals where the greatest risk lies.
Following the 2005 London attack the key lesson learned was that intelligence must be shared between the security services and the police and the UK has developed a model of intelligence analysis with the introduction of bodies like the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) where the intelligence is forwarded onto the relevant agency with the greatest capability for dealing with specific issues. It is model that has served the UK well in recent years as between 2005 and 2017 the only other main attack we witnessed was the killing of Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013 and is model other states have wanted to emulate.
Of course some will say why has the UK sustained five major attacks (the attack in Parsons Green in September 2017 does not appear to have been part of the remit in David Anderson’s investigation)? The Manchester bombing was the most sophisticated attack that involved more individuals that just Abedi. One could arguably say the same for Parsons Green in relation to the bomb that fortunately failed to detonate fully on the Tube train, but lack of knowledge and inexperience existed in that attack. The other three were low level attacks carried out by driving vehicles into people and stabbing victims with knives. These are relatively easy to prepare and carry out, something we have tragically witnessed in other European states. Since March 2017 the UK’s security services and police have prevented nine attacks from taking place, twenty-two since the killing of Lee Rigby. At the time Amber Rudd was informing the UK Parliament on the findings in the Anderson report news also broke related to terrorism arrests. Two men, Rahman from London and Imran from Birmingham were appearing in court on the 6th Dec for allegedly plotting to kill the UK Prime Minister, both men were arrested on the 29th November 2017. Rashid from Lancashire (northwest England) who was arrested on the 22nd November 2017 was charged with offences of preparing acts of terrorism, will be appearing at Westminster Magistrates Court in London today.
Preventing terrorist attacks is a difficult task, but in the current climate it is virtually impossible to prevent all attacks from occurring. One should focus on what the UK security services and the police have achieved. Lessons will be learnt and it maybe that intelligence form other police sources could be shared such as neighbourhood officers who may have that vital piece of intelligence on individuals who may have been downgraded as a low priority that would make those countering terrorism look at them again.

I discuss this in more details in my interview with BBC Radio Wales (1 hour 10 minutes 33 seconds in) and on BBC North West Tonight (TV)

President Trump’s Response to New York Terror Attack Reveals Naivety, Inaccuracy and Contradiction

donald trumpSaipov

At a US Cabinet meeting press conference following the New York terror attack, answering journalists’ question, US President Donald Trump gave answers that, if not resulting in further disbelief, to those getting used to Trump’s style of responses will at least raise an eyebrow.

Trump Tweet

One issue was President Trump’s tweet on the 2nd November 2017 that the terrorist Saipov should get the death penalty. Firstly the issue is still sub judice and due process still has to take its course as it is currently alleged that Saipov has committed these offences, he has not pleaded or been found guiltily of murdering the eight victims. Also it will be difficult for Saipov to receive the death penalty as New York state no longer have the death penalty. This is an important extradition issue especially with European countries as it allows for easier extradition as seen with the example of Abu Hamza from the UK.

GTMO

Apart from showing his lack of knowledge of NY state law, President Trump also showed his lack of legal knowledge and understanding of why prisoners have been detained at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO). When asked, President Trump replied that he would consider sending Saipov to GTMO. Legally this may be difficult as GTMO detetnion centre was created to detain suspected Islamists linked to Al Qaeda who were arrested in Afghanistan. In essence, GTMO was created as a military detention centre so prisoners could be detained under US military law. If GTMO detainees were transported to the US then US criminal law would apply, something President GW Bush wanted to avoid when establishing the camp. Amnesty International has considered GTMO as a major breach of human rights. President Obama promised to close GTMO. Although he did not achieve this during his presidency, GTMO detainees were reduced from 245 to 41. The issue President Trump has overlooked regarding Saipov is he killed and injured the victims on US soil and as such he will face trial for murder and attempt murder under US criminal law where no doubt terrorism will be a sentencing factor. As such, if Saipov pleads or is found guilty it is likely he will receive a long prison sentence.

US-America-Diversity-Visa-Lottery-2017

President Trump also said the Diversity Immigrant Visa Programme that was introduced via a Bill passed in 1990 with the Immigration Act (also referred to as the diversity lottery programme) as ineffective. The programme is run by the US State Department where individuals who are determined to have a low enough level of immigration requirements to the US can apply. Under the Act countries that have more than 50,000 of their citizens immigrate to the US in the previous five years are ineligible. This could explain why Saipov was allowed to enter the US in 2010 from Uzbekistan. To be successful, individual applicants must have at least a high school education or equivalent and two years of experience working a job that requires at least two years of training or experience within five years of the application. The programme has not been without its political detractors. President Trump wants to end this programme and replace it with a merit based immigration programme as he wants to keep the US safe, something he does not see the current programme doing, He made it clear, ‘…we do not want lotteries’. Adding to this he was clear that also does not want chain immigration where someone entering the US on the current programme can bring in members of their family. On a final question President Trump said members of Saipov’s family could also be a threat to US security.

There s no doubting that to date President Trump’s tenure in the post has been different to his predecessors. He is quick to offer his opinion, especially via the 140 character limiting Twitter. While many may see his as a refreshing change, he does speak first without considering the consequences his comments have both in the US and aboard.

I am no apologist for any group and I understand and agree with the issues he raised regarding the Diversity Immigration Visa Programme. As with other states like Canada and Australia for example, a merit based immigration system is more effective in relation to vetting procedures and is preferable to a lottery based system as that in the Diversity Programme. It is understandable why states would want potential immigrants to be educated to a high standard with skills and knowledge that would enhance their state alongside an ability to speak the main language of that state.

This particular press conference once more provided groups like Islamic Sate with further ammunition to feed its propaganda machine that is influencing individuals as well as having the potential to alienate certain communities that make up the US population, along with states outside the US. For me President Trump could clothe his open, forthright opinions in more acceptable political/diplomatic style of rhetoric. Regarding the possible sentencing, he could have said that he has faith in the due process of the US criminal justice system to deal appropriately with Saipov. In relation to the Diversity Immigration Visa Programme, he could have said that it will be reviewed, adding it is important that a merit system be encouraged. Regarding Saipov’s family being a threat, the answer should have been that presently there is nothing to suggest that. One cannot and should not judge a whole family based on the actions of one of its members.

prevent logo

One problem the US appears to have in dealing with individuals influenced by extremist narrative who end up carrying out terrorist attacks is the inability of the federal government to introduce a Prevent strategy that is uniform across the 50 states like that in the UK or the federal state of Australia. One of the difficulties in achieving this is the historical and political issues where the 50 states resent increasing  interference from a Washington DC based federal government. These issues have been present for many years in the US where one could argue it was one of the issues behind the 1860’s civil war. Another example was a century later in the 1960’s with southern states and the civil rights movement exemplified by Alabama governor George Wallace’s stance by trying to prohibit a black student from enrolling at Alabama State University in 1963 resulting in the Kennedy administration to take action against Governor Wallace. If the US could reach an agreement to develop and introduce a Prevent strategy it would help those who are vulnerable to being drawn towards terrorism, especially through the influence of extremists’ narrative. I accept that the UK’s Prevent strategy has some flaws, but overall it is a successful policy that has helped many individuals at a pre-criminal stage. Perhaps the US should consider introducing such a strategy as it is far more effective than simply having nothing concrete in place. Rather than making wide sweeping statements regarding certain faiths, communities and complaining of narratives that influence people to commit acts of terror, in addition to investigating terrorism action having a Prevent strategy in place would assist some individuals before hey become too imbued with an ideology that leads the to carry out terrorist acts.

 

 

British soldiers suspected of being members of banned far right group

national action logo1national action at Liverpool

 

It has been reported that four British Army solders have been arrested for allegedly plotting a terror attack and being members of a proscribed far right group, National Action. In December 2016 National Action became the first far right group to be proscribed among western states. By being proscribed, National Action is now a terrorist group in the UK.

Over the last few years there has been a rise in far right activity, not just in the UK but globally. In the US we have witnessed the rise in far right group activity leading to violent clashes such as that seen recently in Charlottesville where a car was driven into a crowd killing one person and injuring nineteen others. Whether this has been in response to Islamist groups’ activity is questionable. Far right groups have been active in western states over many years, it might just be that in the current climate where many have concerns of recent actions carried out by Islamist  groups that pose threats to personal safety in day-to-day activities far right groups feel more comfortable in being more able to express their ideology. Added to this we have seen a rise in the popularity of nationalist political parties. This was seen in the 2016 Dutch elections with Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom who secured a significant rise in votes and seats in the Dutch Parliament and Marine le Pen, the leader of the National Front party in France who ran second to Macron in the 2016 French presidential elections. It could be argued that the popularity of the likes of Nigel Farage, the former leader of UKIP, who was one of the most strident in encouraging the UK electorate to vote leave in the 2016 EU referendum  with his message related to immigration and the slogan ‘We want our country back’ . It could be argued these political events along with Donald Trump winning the US 2015 presidential election with his xenophobic messages in the ‘Make American Great Again’ slogan have created a  safer environment where far right groups feel able to be more open and vocal in their message.

National Action 2.jpg

The threat and danger to life far right groups pose should not be underestimated. Recent examples in the UK include  Zak Davies who was radicalised online and a member of National Action was convicted of attempt murder in June 2015 when he tried to behead his victim, a Sikh, who Davies thought was a Muslim. In November 2016 Thomas Mair who was also radicalised to the far right narrative was convicted  of murder after killing a UK Member of Parliament, Jo Cox in June 2016. In June 2017 Darren Osbourne is allegedly suspected of being influenced by far right ideology when he allegedly drove a vehicle into worshippers who were leaving Finsbury Park Mosque in London, injuring eleven people.

As Islamist terror activity has been prominent both in actual attacks and in the media, it is understandable that other forms of extremism seem to have either been ignored or not recognised by many people. This is why working to help achieve the aims of the Prevent strategy is important. It is better to help people at a pre-criminal stage who are attracted by an extremist narrative and as such are being drawn towards terrorism. It is not perfect, but it is the best we have got. All forms of extremism, even non-violent extremism that glories violence are dangerous and must be differentiated from activism. For a more detailed analysis of this issue see my article in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism ‘Prevent Strategies: The Problems Associated in Defining Extremism: The Case of the United Kingdom’.