The UK Riots: what role the ‘far right’ and what can we do about them?
This is a version of an article I wrote that was published by Policing Insight on 9th August 2024 albeit under a different title.
You can read the original Policing Insight article here.
In response to the civil unrest that followed the stabbing of three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance and yoga club, the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer was unequivocal in his condemnation. Describing the unrest as criminal violence rather than legitimate protest, he said that those found guilty of being involved would “face the full force of the law”. He went on, “I won't shy away from calling it what it is - far-right thuggery”.
Most seem to agree with him that the far-right are in some way involved. So much so that some in the mainstream media have dubbed the unrest the ‘far-right riots’ and a coalition of groups on the left are planning a National Day of Protest. While so, it is not entirely clear who from within the far-right might be involved or what that involvement might look like. To try and better understand this, this article considers who the far-right are and what we know about them. From there it asks whether using ‘the full force of the law’ is the right approach or if there are other, more effective responses.
Who are the Far-Right?
Before we answer this question, we need to spend a moment thinking about the term ‘far-right’. Despite being widely used, it is a term that is bandied about and indiscriminately applied. Sometimes it is used as a slur or code for calling someone ‘racist’. As a result, there is a general lack of agreement about what the term means and importantly, who the far-right actually are. According to Cas Mudde – a leading expert in the field - far-right is nowadays all-encompassing: used to refer to a broad spectrum of different ideologies and activities that range from casual xenophobia through to violent fascism. In recent years he goes on, the spectrum of what is and what is not far-right has expanded even further to take in certain forms of anti-establishment populism and the rejection of certain ‘liberal values’ especially those relating to minority rights. Despite its widespread usage therefore, without the necessary clarity and context the term can be somewhat meaningless. There is definitely scope for greater clarity and context as regards what is meant by the far-right in terms of the current unrest.
In the context of 21st century Britain, the far-right is likely to be somewhat different from what some might think it is and from what some would have once known it to be. That is because a number of factors have not only served to transform the far-right but at times, reinvigorate it also. The first of these was the ideological turn that took place around the turn of the century and was masterminded by Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (BNP) at the time. A far-right political party with electoral aspirations, Griffin sought to modernise the BNP. As part of this, he sought to capitalise on rising levels of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate that followed in the wake 9/11. Breaking with the historical traditions of the far-right, Griffin shifted the BNP’s ideological gaze away from race and anti-Semitism onto Islam and immigration. By focusing on the ‘threats’ perceived to be posed by Islam and immigration the BNP achieved unprecedented success in successive local, European and London Assembly elections in the mid-2000s. Success however was short-lived and by 2010, infighting had left the BNP in disarray.
Irrespective, the BNP’s ideological turn gave the far-right new impetus and paved the way for a number of other groups that emerged in the aftermath of its demise. Among others, these included the English Defence League (EDL), Britain First, Football Lads Alliance (FLA) and its later offshoot, the Democratic Football Lads Alliance (DFLA). While all were ideologically focused on Islam and immigration, unlike the BNP all of the groups are best described as ‘post-organisational’. The shift to post-organisational - the second transformative factor – saw these groups move away: from electoral politics to street-based protest and direct action; from hierarchical member-based organisations to informal, loose-knit and highly fluid networks; from face-to-face meetings to online messaging; and from ‘old-fashioned’ expressions relevant to traditional and historical nationalism to ‘contemporary’ populist and antagonistic alternatives.
Under the leadership of Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), the EDL was something of a trailblazer. Not only did he mobilise thousands of people from across the country to attend – at times – near weekly protests against the building of mosques in vastly different towns and cities but so too did he take the ideological turn of the BNP even further. Accentuating the perceived threats that he believed were being posed to Britain and British people by the religion of Islam and growing numbers of Muslims, not only did Robinson’s EDL call on ‘black and white to unite’ but so too did was he able to mobilise minority communities that had previously been vilified by the far-right. These included Sikh, Hindu and Jewish communities as also those who identified as disabled or LGBTQ: each group also having its own EDL ‘division. The break with the ‘old’ far-right was none more evident than in how EDL supporters carried Israeli flags during protests.
The transformative factor relates to the shift towards notions of ‘defence’. This also began with Robinson’s EDL, no more evident than in the prominence of the term in the group’s name. For them, not only was this necessary but so too was it a reminder of what the EDL was: a necessary – maybe only – bulwark against the aforementioned threats. Over time, the notion of defence has expanded as different far-right groups have continued to identify varions other perceived threats. Among others, these have included the need to defend free speech and for some, to defend ‘our’ women and girls from ‘grooming gangs’. Underlying the different expressions of defence is the same thing: the defence of ‘our’ country, way of life and culture from threatening enemy others. And this is no more evident than in the recent activities of Britain First. Claiming to provide “the frontline resistance to the Islamification of Britain”, over time Britain First have repeatedly sought to conflate the threats they claim are posed by Muslims with those posed by ‘illegal immigrants’. I response to this, the group has taken to patrolling beaches near the English Channel with the intention of stopping ‘illegal’ Muslims from entering the country.
The final factor that has served to transform the far-right is the adoption of ‘victim’ narratives. According to Alex Oaten, the ‘cult of the victim’ is an important part of the contemporary far-right’s identity. Here again, Robinson is an exemplar. Oaten illustrates this by highlighting the circumstance surrounding Robinson being sentenced to 13 months in prison for live streaming from outside a court where a rape trial was underway and a ban on reporting was in place. Irrespective that Robinson was guilty, during his sentencing his supporters had gathered outside waving British flags and carrying banners emblazoned with the slogan, “#Free Tommy Robinson”. For them, Robinson was a hero for defending the public by exposing ‘Muslim paedophiles’. Rather than being a criminal, Robinson was seen as a victim of the criminal justice system, the political establishment, mainstream media, liberal intelligentsia and everybody else. In cultivating his victimhood himself, Robinson garners the support of not only the far-right but so too various dissatisfied others that also see themselves as victims.
Who in the Far-Right Are Behind the Unrest?
Despite the clear consensus about the involvement of the far-right in the recent unrest, few – if indeed, any - of the far-right groups referred to previously would appear to be in the kind of rude health that would be enable them to be orchestrating unrest on the scale of the past week or so. Take for instance Britain First and the DFLA. While both were believed to have been nominally involved in organising the Black Lives Matter counter-protests in central London in 2020, neither would seem to have either the number of supporters or wider traction to be able to mobilise the numbers we have recently seen. The same is true of Patriotic Alternative (PA). Despite it being the largest and fastest growing far-right group in Britain, its supporter base is known to have been significantly weakened due to some having left to join other far-right groups including the Independent Nationalist Network and Homeland among others. While one prominent member of PA did share images online of him attending the Southport protest, this should be seen for what it is and in no way over-inflated.
Shortly after the Southport protest, the police claimed that some of those attacking the mosque were supporters of the EDL. While questions remain about how they were identified, the claims were enough to prompt the former First Minister of Scotland, Humza Yousaf to call for the EDL to be designated a terror group and duly proscribed. In a letter to the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Yousaf said it was “time we took on the English Defence League and the evil ideology that drives them”. In truth, the letter seems somewhat pointless given that the EDL is nowadays largely defunct. Having reached its peak in 2011, after Robinson left in 2013 the number of people attending its protests dramatically decreased: from 2-3,000 in 2011 to just six at its last recorded protest in 2017. Unless there has been a dramatic volte face in the group’s fortunes, one might reasonably conclude that the EDL are most definitely not the current kingmakers.
Others would appear to be similarly clutching at straws when trying to identify the involvement of the far-right. An example of this comes from the anti-fascist advocacy group, Hope Not Hate and it claiming the potential involvement of British Movement. While British Movement remains active and most definitely has a reputation for violence, that the ‘evidence’ for the group’s involvement was the identification of “some people with Nazi tattoos” is tenuous at best. Elsewhere, there have been claims about the involvement of the far-right via different football firms and associated hooligan networks. Here again the ‘evidence’ is at best, open to question. Given that both the FLA and DFLA were premised on bringing rival football firms together, what would be the purpose of them rejecting that collective solidarity in favour of operating in isolation. It is also worth remembering that not all football firms and hooligan networks are associated with the far-right. Here again, the ‘evidence’ is tenuous.
One final attempt at explaining the involvement of the far-right centres on Robinson. While it is clear he is not himself personally involved given he is currently outside the country, some are attributing him with responsibility for the unrest. According to the Middle East Eye, this is because his name is “regularly featured in chants…” by those who “…torch libraries, attack mosques and smash windows”. Others have pointed to the ‘Uniting the Kingdom’ rally Robinson organised in central London in July this year. Promoted as a “patriotic show of force”, the rally was attended by more than 30,000 people and featured a number of speakers including Robinson himself. Echoing much of what he’s said in the past, reports claim Robinson saw the rally as part of a wider effort to create an organised far-right movement. Scant evidence exists however to support this. At most, one might question a potential resonance between the rally and the onset of violence given the close proximity of them both occurring. As before however, any resonance would be at best extremely tenuous.
What Can Be Done About the Unrest?
From the above analysis, if the far-right is involved it would seem unlikely that the unrest is being overseen or orchestrated by one or another group or individual. This is backed up comments made by Nick Lowles, the founder of Hope Not Hate when he said “No-one is organising the local protests and there is very, very little chatter about it on the [far-right] forums and WhatsApp groups that have been key over the past week”. If so, maybe we need to re-evaluate the validity of the claims made about the far-right.
Of course, this is not to say that the far-right is not involved in some way: far from it. However, that involvement is now more likely to be rather more individualised and wholly ‘post-organisational’. Those involved therefore are likely to comprise groups of individuals who are loosely connected to each other via highly fluid networks that lack formal hierarchies or structures that exist almost exclusively online. While some may be affiliated to certain groups, their involvement would seem to be opportunistic and organic: the stabbings affording those with a far-right mindset an opportunity to mobilise, create chaos and exploit for ideological gain. Understanding the far-right’s involvement in this way not only resonates with the notion of defence but so too of them being victims. Justifying the protests on the need to ‘defend’ others from being killed, any pushback against them can be argued as ‘evidence’ of their unfair victimisation by the police, government and everybody else. A perfect encapsulation of the contemporary far-right and a situation that has the potential for others to go on and exploit.
When thinking about what can be done, we need to focus on what should not be done and that is to go down the route of proscription. Not only would it be inappropriate given it is clear that no far-right group is currently orchestrating the unrest but so too because it would be unlawful to designate any as terrorist groups. As none currently meet the threshold for being designated as such, any attempts to do so would be potentially counter-productive. Use the full force of law as it currently is.
Of course, there is a pressing need to better articulate what is meant by the far-right and to substantiate any claims made by the government or mainstream media with appropriate evidence. Evidence here is used in such a way that it is notably different from intelligence. This would have a number of potential benefits. One is that it would it help improve understanding about exactly how much of the ‘thuggery’ is far-right thuggery. Looking at the unrest from a distance, it would appear that much of it is nothing more than plain and simple thuggery. Claiming it to be something that it is not is unnecessary. So too should the mainstream media refrain from naming the unrest ‘far-right riots’. Not everyone involved in the unrest would appear to be ‘far-right’. If they are, then provide evidence: if they are not, refrain from using ‘far-right’ as an all-encompassing one size fits all term.
It is also important that far-right is not used as a slur to derogate and unfairly accuse those who have been peacefully protesting. In the same way it was wrong to blanketly accuse to all those protesting against Israel’s military response in Gaza as ‘Islamists’, it is wrong to blanketly accuse all those protesting now as ‘far-right’. Irrespective of whether the views of those protesting are disagreeable, they have the right to do so peacefully. Failing to do this will again play into the hands of those such as Robinson.
Finally – and most controversially – the government needs to listen and respond to the concerns of those peacefully protesting and the many more that are nowhere near the unrest that are similarly concerned. The reason for the government needing to do this are twofold.
First because much of the far-right rhetoric about Muslims and migrants has been replicated by at least some mainstream politicians for the past two decades. Just look at the similarities between the language used in the ongoing unrest and the rhetoric used by politicians: protesters chanting “stop the boats” – Rishi Sunak’s own policy on irregular migration – being a good example. So too are the same views partly the legacy of the Brexit Leave campaign’s toxic rhetoric, much of which has continued to be a feature of both mainstream political rhetoric and mainstream media reporting since. Politicians of all stripes have therefore helped enable the current situation.
Second from lessons learned from research undertaken more than a decade ago that sought to investigate opposition to the building of a new mosque in Dudley, West Midlands. While some of those opposing the mosque were undeniably ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’, not everybody was. Despite some doing so for legitimate reasons (e.g. the rules around brown land development), over time they found themselves gravitating towards the far-right. When asked why, the reason was categorical. Having been ignored by the mainstream political parties for many years – some of whom were happy to perpetuate the myth that they were most definitely racists or Islamophobes – they said the far-right were the only people who would listen to their concerns.
If the government therefore refuse to listen, it would seem that there is only one way for those with concerns about immigration to gravitate. That the government and mainstream media are highlighting that it is the far-right - and only the far-right - that is prepared to do something about those concerns might have the unwanted consequence of both signposting and accelerating that gravitational pull towards certain individuals and groups – both old and new – that are more than keen to capitalise on the concerns of others by exploiting them for their own ideological gain.