Sunak and Shawcross Resurrect the Spectre of Islamist Extremism: Why Now...?
Coincidence or collusion...?
Rishi Sunak – one of the two remaining Conservative Party leadership candidates - has used his campaign to let Party members know that he’ll be – to bastardise Tony Blair - tough on terrorism and tough on the causes on terrorism if he becomes the next Prime Minister. The first Chancellor of the Exchequer in British history believed to have broken the law while in office, Sunak said he would achieve this by incorporating the “vilification of the United Kingdom” into his Government’s definition of extremism. So too would he “refocus” Prevent – the UK Government’s counter-terrorism strategy – back onto Islamist extremism. Echoing David Cameron’s infamous ‘muscular liberalism’ speech, Sunak said this was necessary because Islamist extremists not only want to attack British values but so too destroy our very existence.
Sunak’s proposals were strikingly similar to a number of recently ‘leaked’ recommendations from the forthcoming report of the independent review of Prevent. Launched in January 2019, the review has since been dogged by controversy beginning with the first appointed independent reviewer who had to step down amid legal action over allegations of bias. According to the mainstream media, the report – now presided over by William Shawcross who Amnesty International claim holds prejudicial views about Islam - will allege that because Prevent has become too focused on right-wing extremism there is now a pressing need to crackdown on Islamist extremists. So too will Shawcross recommend a new definition of extremism. Necessary on the basis of an alleged ‘double standard’, Shawcross claims that different expressions of extremism are approached differently whereby right-wing extremism is understood too broadly and Islamist extremism too narrowly.
A Meaningless Definition of Extremism
The UK Government currently defines extremism as the:
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”
Premised on a handful of values that lack anything that is either distinctly or exclusively British, the definition has been widely – and rightly – criticised. As well as by academics and activists alike, so too have the weaknesses of the definition been pointed out by the UK Government’s own Commission for Countering Extremism.
Largely meaningless, adding ‘vilification of the United Kingdom’ to the definition would seemingly achieve little. Yet when a Google search tells you that vilifying someone can amount to little more than saying something that makes another person look bad, the potential for it being subjectively applied is worrying. As well as having the potential to be deployed unfairly and inconsistently, so too is there the potential to use the ‘vilification’ against those who dislike, disagree, or criticise the Government, monarchy, military, police and more.
As regards a ‘double standard’, research does indeed support this but not how Shawcross claims. For instance, when when those on the ideological right have a propensity to use or justify violence - such as National Action or Sonnenkreig Division - they are categorised as ‘extreme right-wing’. For those on the ideological right who do not advocate violence - such as the English Defence League or Britain First - they are categorised as ‘far-right’. While there is merit to this approach, no similar categories are applied to Muslim groups and organisations. Irrespective of whether they have a propensity for violence or not, all are categorised as Islamist without differentiation. Accordingly, those such as CAGE and Hizb ut-Tahrir become routinely conflated with al-Muhajiroun and those inspired by Islamic State.
Resurgent Yet Ignored
In terms of Islamist extremism, it would be foolish to suggest it poses no threat to the UK. However, so too would it be foolish to underestimate the threat posed by the extreme right-wing. According to the Government’s own data, of the 32 terrorist plots that have been foiled since 2017 12 have been inspired by right-wing extremism (18 by Islamist extremism). More pertinently, of the 20 children arrested for terrorism offences in the past 12 months 19 were inspired by extreme right-wing ideologies. Likewise 41% of all counter-terrorism arrests in 2021. The threat posed by the extreme right-wing is no more evident however than in the Government’s own data about referrals to Prevent where for the past two years, extreme right-wing referrals have outnumbered Islamist referrals.
For whatever reason, Sunak and Shawcross nonetheless seem hell-bent on simultaneously ignoring both the threat posed by the extreme right-wing as indeed those for whom it inspires. In some unsurprising, the Government’s existing definition of extremism already plays into the hands of the far- and extreme right-wing. By centring the definition on vague and meaningless ‘British values’, so it is easy for those who claim to be patriots ‘defending the nation’ to not only buy in to the definition but so too demarcate themselves from the enemies they want us to believe are destroying who ‘we’ are and what ‘we’ stand for. Throw ‘vilification’ into the mix and their hand will be further strengthened: dangerous at a time when their number and the threat they pose are known to be increasing.
Only Time Will Tell
On the one hand, what Sunak and Shawcross are doing is relatively straightforward. For the former, he’s trying to garner the support of a Conservative Party membership that has for years now been under scrutiny for allegations of Islamophobia. In this way, Sunak is merely preaching to the converted. As regards the latter, the ‘leaked’ recommendations are likely little more than a mere parroting of what the independent review was set up to achieve long before it was ever launched. For Sunak and Shawcross, it’s a job well done.
On the other hand, there are likely to be more duplicitous reasons why Sunak and Shawcross have synchoronised their attempts to resurrect the spectre of the threat posed by Islamist - for many, read ‘Muslim’ - extremism. Maybe it’s to instil more fear into an already overly fearful general public: for those who continue to wear a face mask while driving alone will surely now be making sure their central locking is on before reversing off their drive.s Maybe it’s another way for the Government to roll back on our individual and collective rights, a means to further target and criminalise those who hold any views that go against what they and others in the ruling elites want to impose upon us.
Only time will tell what the real cause or driver for this happening now is likely to be. Given the full report of the independent review is likely to be any time now, that wait may not be too long. Irrespective - and in the meantime - don’t trust either of them.