A police officer stands guard in front of protesters defending the Abdullah Quilliam Mosque in Liverpool. Picture: AFP
The UK has recently been plagued by riots ignited by the Southport stabbings, bringing to light a concerning disparity in societal perceptions and reactions to far-right violence versus Islamist extremism.
Often, acts of violence driven by far-right ideologies are dismissed as mere thuggery or labelled as hooliganism. In stark contrast, similar actions rooted in Islamist extremism are promptly categorised as terrorism.
Such discrepancies diminish the perceived gravity of far-right threats and impede the mobilisation of political will to address them with equivalent rigour.
The tendency to minimise the ideological motivations behind far-right violence also skews public understanding of extremism. It overlooks the profound impact of pervasive societal biases, including racism, religious discrimination and anti-immigration sentiments. The terminology employed in public discourse, political arenas and media narratives plays a pivotal role: it shapes communal perceptions and responses to various forms of violence, thereby influencing the success of counter-extremism initiatives.
Insights from the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), a defence and security think tank, highlight the issue. Its research in 2015 and 2016, focusing on regions grappling with far-right extremism, revealed that communities often associated such violence with criminality or hooliganism rather than with terrorism or violent extremism. Conversely, extremism was predominantly linked to Islamist movements and violent jihad.
The perceptions carry profound implications for grass-roots efforts to combat the far right. They influence who is deemed responsible for spearheading responses – often relegating the task to law enforcement rather than a broader coalition of entities engaged in counter-terrorism and strategies to prevent and counteract violent extremism. Additionally, responses tend to be punitive, targeting individuals without addressing the broader, more pervasive ideologies at play.
Consequently, the manner in which far-right extremism is defined and comprehended impacts the effectiveness of measures designed to thwart it. Rusi’s findings suggest that the nature of far-right violence – frequently perceived as sporadic and low-impact– combined with institutional biases and racism, has historically resulted in a muted response from politicians, security agencies and the media when compared to reactions to jihadist extremism.
The issue is exemplified by Keir Starmer’s recent description of the riots as “far-right thuggery”. While probably intended to acknowledge the ideological roots of the violence, the term “thuggery” inadvertently minimises the organised, networked and ideological facets of the riots, as well as the involvement of specific individuals and groups.
The riots should be contextualised within a broader continuum of actions and attacks targeting migrants and refugees in the UK over recent years. Such incidents highlight a consistent pattern of violence that has largely escaped significant political and public scrutiny.
Recent debates about imposing terrorism charges challenge the prevailing frameworks and methodologies for addressing such acts. While the “terrorism” label might not be appropriate for all violent incidents arising from the riots – many of which might be more accurately categorised as hate crimes or acts of extremism – acknowledging the most severe cases as terrorism would promote a more balanced legal approach. This would ensure that all manifestations of extremism are prosecuted with the gravity they warrant.
Related Topics: