Christchurch Terrorist Attack

Christchurch attack1Christchurch attack

All forms of violence are tragic and awful. The threat of extreme far-right and far-right influenced terrorism revealed the devastation it causes was witnessed in Christchurch, New Zealand on Friday 15th March 2019 where, to date 49 people have been killed in an attack by a gunman influenced by the extreme far-right. The man’s target was Muslims worshipping at two Christchurch mosques where he indiscriminately shot and killed men, women and children.

METROGRAB:Suspected  Finsbury Park attacker is detained by police and members of the public
Photo credit: Nawaf Atiq/ Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/nawaf.atiq

While all terrorist attacks come as a shock when they happen, this is not the first time we have witnessed the use of small arms or the targeting of those attending a place of worship. Bissonnette, who was influenced by far-right ideology, was convicted in early 2019 for the murder of six Muslims he shot while attending a mosque in Quebec, Canada in 2017. Darren Osbourne was convicted of murder and attempt murder after killing a Muslim and seriously injuring other Muslims attending Finsbury Park Mosque, London after driving a van into worshippers leaving the mosque in June 2017. White supremacist, Dylann Roof, was convicted of murdering nine black worshippers at a church in Carolina, US, when he entered the church and shot them.

Jayda Fransen court case
Deputy leader of the far-right group, Jayda Fransen (centre) and its leader Paul Golding (left), leave Belfast Magistrates’ Court, after she was released on bail after appearing at the court charged over comments about Islam made in a social media posting. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Picture date: Friday December 15, 2017. Fransen, 31, has been charged with threatening behaviour over remarks made earlier this week beside a peace wall dividing Catholics from Protestants in the city. See PA story ULSTER Hate. Photo credit should read: Liam McBurney/PA Wire

I have posted numerous blogs on my website regarding the rise of extreme far-right and far-right inspired violence over the last 18 months. I see two distinct groups here with the extreme far-right, who espouse the national socialist ideology and are neo-Nazis, and the far-right who are generally anti-Islam, anti-immigration and anti-EU (European groups). The violence has ranged from hate crime to, as seen in the UK in June 2016, the killing of a politician, the MP Jo Cox by Thomas Mair who was inspired by neo-Nazi ideology. My work in this area has shown how the rise in populist right wing politics has resulted in the extreme far-right and far-right feeling more comfortable in espousing their message and cause. Also, while one tends to think of the right being nationalist, a degree of internationalisation has occurred where, mainly through current forms of electronic communication, from social media to website support for and encouragement of extreme far-right and far-right activity between similar thinking citizens in various states.. As I have said on many occasions, do not underestimate the threat of the extreme far-right and the far-right.

National Action 2Atomwaffen

My studies revealed a high degree of variance in hate crime and terrorist activity related to the right. The UK is currently the only western state to proscribe extreme far-right groups as terrorist organisations (National Action in December 2016, Scottish Dawn and NS131 in September 2017) and has a statutory definition of hate crime related to race, religion, nationality and sexuality. Canada has a similar statutory provision as the UK regarding hate crime, but the Australian legislation is weak and US is virtually non-existent, with the definition of hate crime being non-statutory and provided by the FBI. One reason for this is politicians do not want to be seen to impinge on freedom of expression. This may also explain with no other state has followed the UK in proscribing certain groups as terrorist organisations. As a result, extreme far-right and far-right groups are open in publicising their cause via various media. For example in the US neo-Nazi groups, although monitored by the likes of the FBI, are actively open. One US group, Atomwaffen, their social media and website contains videos of their members burning the US flag and constitution, training with automatic assault rifles and calling for a race war. Due their glorification and promotion of violence to their cause if they were based in the UK they would be proscribed as a terrorist group.

Maybe, just maybe, this tragic and truly awful attack in Christchurch will have states tightening or introducing hate crime legislation and following the UK by proscribing extreme far-right groups as terrorist organisation to deal with the internationalisation of the right, just as they have rightly done so with Islamist groups.

My terrorism book cover

Your can read more on this area in my book ‘Terrorism: Law and Policy’, published by Routledge in 201

Does Extreme Far-Right Terrorism Really Pose a Threat to national Security? Evidence, Freedom of Expression and Differentiating between the Extreme Far-Right and the Far-Right

 

Thomas in Klan uniform

On the 12th November 2018 a number of individuals were convicted in the UK for terrorism offences linked to extreme far-right terrorism. Adam Thomas, Claudia Patatas and Daniel Bogunavic were convicted for being members of a proscribed organisation, namely National Acton, with Thomas also convicted for being in possession of articles useful to terrorists (Anarchist Cookbook). A British Army soldier, Lance Corporal Mikko Vehvilainen was also convicted for being a member of National Action. Thomas and Patatas named their baby boy Adolf after Adolf Hitler and Thomas was photographed wearing Ku Klux Klan clothing while cradling the child. Vehvilainen was an army trainer who tried to recruit soldiers to National Action. When the police searched his army accommodation they found swastika flags, Nazi memorabilia, CD’s of Third Reich music and stockpiles of guns, knives and other weapons. Apart from the stockpile of weapons, in themselves the other items do not pose a threat as they are not per se items that encourages a person fascinated by the extreme far-right national socialist ideology to commit violence. When added to other more incriminating evidence, it can help to prove a person’s mens rea when linked to extreme far-right terrorism.

shelagh fogerty

On the 13th November 2018 I was interviewed by Shelagh Fogerty on the radio channel LBC on the threat the extreme far-right pose to national security. I posted on Twitter that I was looking forward to having the discussion with Shelagh and some of the replies were interesting. One said comparing:

‘…an idiot with a child called Adolph and who wears Klan clothes to Islamist terrorism and religious race hate child abuse is absurd’.

Another saw raising the threat of extreme far-right pose as a ‘false equivalence’ to Islamist terrorism that he saw as a permanent fixture in Britain and is, ‘…likely to get worse’. I think in both the comments posted to Shelagh during my discussion with her and those posted prior and after the discussion showed a lack of real knowledge of why these individuals were convicted and why extreme far-right Neo-Nazi’s are a threat.

Terrorism-Act-2000

Firstly the terrorist related offences they were convicted for were serious offences all carrying a maximum of 10 years imprisonment:
1. Offence of being a member or professing to be a member of a proscribed organisation (section 11 Terrorism Act 2000);
2. Offence of inviting support for proscribed organisations (section 12 terrorism Act 2000);
3. Offence of possessing a document of a kind likely to be useful to persons committing or preparing acts of terrorism (section 58 Terrorism Act 2000).

Being members of National Action all four were convicted for the section 11 offence. Vehvilainen was also convicted for the section 12 offence with Bogunavic convicted for the section 58 offence, which was the possession of the Anarchist Cookbook that informs readers how to make improvised explosive devices. The offences they were convicted of were not simply due to being dressed in Klan clothes or calling a child Adolf, although if worn outside the Klan clothing could potentially amount to an offence under section 13 Terrorism Act 2000 of wearing a uniform in public that gives suspicion they are a member of a proscribed organisation. This is an issue in the North of Ireland with the New IRA and loyalist groups like the UVF and the UFF during marches in the country.

for_britainEDL-tommy-robinson

As Shelagh asked on the LBC programme, why has the UK proscribed extreme far-right groups like National Action? In essence it is because they glorify or promote violence. The national socialist ideology of the Ne-Nazis does this. It is important to differentiate between the extreme far-right Neo-Nazi groups and the far-right such as Tommy Robinson and his followers and parties like the For Britain Party, formed and led by former UKIP leader Anne Marie Waters in 2017. Antifa would have you believe that all far-right parties and groups are Nazis. This is not the case. Many far-right groups and individuals like Tommy Robinson and the For Britain Party do not glorify or promote the use of violence. They have views that many find odious, heretical, offensive or generally unwelcome and at odds with a liberal democracy. For example the For Britain Party are anti-Islam, anti-immigration and promotes British values (to define that is a legal minefield!), but as they do not glorify or promote violence they want to bring about change though democratic and judicial processes.

VehvilainenNational Action 2

Compare this with the extreme far-right Neo-Nazis like Vehvilainen. He posted online to ‘fight the Jew forever’, ‘The sooner [black people] are eliminated the better’ and ‘How anyone can somehow regards n*****s and w***s as human beings and worthy of life is beyond me. I could shoot their children and feel nothing.’ Add this to the evidence that Vehvilainan and his fellow Neo-Nazis were planning to turn depopulated rural villages into national socialist communities and that he posted ‘Every part of me wants war. There is no other way’, we see evidence of both the glorification and promotion of violence. The Nazi memorabilia and items found at Vihvilainen’s accommodation when added to the other evidence related to his mens rea shows his mind-set and factors influencing his thoughts. As seen with other Neo-Nazi groups, they promote and want a race war and an overthrow of any liberal democratic government that tolerates and promotes differences in society. The latter is an absolute anathema to Neo-Nazis, hence why they see the overthrow of governments as necessary in the race war they advocate.
I have a number of blog posts related to the far-right and freedom of expression that you can read on my website, but to put it succinctly, in law freedom of expression allows extreme views that are offensive unless it glorifies or promotes violence. Even though many may find them offensive and unwelcome, a total variance of views and beliefs and the ability to air those views is what makes a true liberal democracy.

Thomas Mairjack Bradshaw

Finally, do extreme far-right Neo-Nazi’s pose a threat to national security? Considering recent activity carried out Neo-Nazi groups or those influenced by Neo-Nazi ideology in the UK, the answer is ‘YES’. In 2015 a National Action member Zak Davies was convicted of attempted murder of a UK citizen of Asian ethnic origin, June 2016 Thomas Mair who was influenced by the extreme far-right assassinated a UK politician, Jo Cox and in June 2018 Jack Renshaw who was linked to National Action was convicted of plotting to kill another UK politician, Rosie Cooper and the police officer investigating him. In addition to the rise in race hate inspired violence, some members or those influenced by Neo-Nazi groups have been found to be in possession of improvised explosive devices where these individuals intended them to be used at mosques and synagogues. While membership of extreme far-right groups is small in number, it only takes a few, even just one individual to cause widespread violence as seen in Norway with Breivik. Do not underestimate the potential of extreme far-right Neo-Nazi groups to carry out attacks. Even when proscribed they morph into new groups as seen with System Resistance Network formed by Alex Davies, who was also one of those who formed National Action, where hopefully this will be the next extreme far-right group to be proscribed.

Raising the fact that extreme far-right terrorism exists in the UK (and other western states) does not mask the very real and potent threat Islamist groups pose to national security as suggested in some of the responses to my tweet, hence why the UK’s terror threat remains at severe. By proscribing extreme far-right Neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organisation and its members as terrorists, the UK government and mainstream media that cover this threat should be applauded not castigated and seen as political correctness to appease the Islamists. By recognising the various extremists who glorify or promote the use of violence as terrorists from the Islamists, extreme far-right and certain Irish republican and loyalist groups, the rationale in doing so is to keep us all safe.

My terrorism book cover

You can read issues raised here in more depth in my book ‘Terrorism: law and Policy’ published by Routledge in 2018

My Television Interviews on Terrorism Topics Monday 23rd July 2018

IS flag

I will be on BBC Northwest Tonight at 6.30pm, Monday 23rd July 2018 to discuss issues around the 15 year old Blackburn boy who was convicted of terrorism offences in 2015 and his wanting to have anonymity following his release from prison.

national action logo1System Resistance Network

 

 

 

 

 

I will be on ITV News at 6.30pm and 10pm, Monday 23rd July 2018 to discuss the threat and rise of the far-right in the UK in particular the neo-Nazi groups like National Action and the newest group that has morphed out National Action, System Resistance Network.

BBC_North_West_Tonight_titlesITV News logo

 

 

Here are the links:

BBC Northwest Tonight

ITV News

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

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’.