August EWJ 24 - Flipbook - Page 82
As MEND look to bring about change through
democratic processes, it seems to be a paradox that
this group was included in Gove’s examples. In relation to the right, he also mentioned the British nationalist group, Patriotic Alternative (PA) as another
example of extremists. When looking at PA’s policies
that includes:
National Party in Westminster raised this with Sunak.
Applying Sunak’s reasoning the same can be said of
political parties like Plaid Cymru who want independence for Wales or even the SDLP in Northern Ireland who have it is their constitution the unification of
the Irish 32 counties, all of whom want to break up
the UK, even though they are a UK political party
whose MP’s take their seats at Westminster. Not only
was Sunak’s interpretation of extremism misinformed,
but it was ludicrous to suggest this as these political
parties want to bring about change through lawful
democratic processes. In relation to extremism, it is
preferable to focus mainly on groups and ideologies
that do promote hate and violence to overturn or
replace the UK’s or any other system of liberal
parliamentary democracy.
1. The right to protect and control UK borders.
2. Protect freedom of expression.
3. Protect public space from nudity, sexual activity and
indecency.
4. Provide a welfare system that is a safety net for those
who have fallen on hard times, not to be a way of life.
5. The right to religious freedom that includes the
right to worship freely and wear religious symbols and
clothing in public spaces.
Identifying Extremism That Promotes Hate and
Violence
In assessing and identifying extremism the first step is
in identifying ideologies that pose a potential threat to
state security. This can be commenced in examining
where extremists expertly exploit various forms of
electronic communications by distorting issues related
to current events and affairs to misinform as fact,
drawing in and exploiting innocent citizens, including the vulnerable, children and young people. It is
submitted the main threat to the state emanate with
these four ideologies:
6. The protection and well- being of animals living
within captivity.
Prima facie most of the above could be said to be the
Conservative Party’s views, for example as seen with
the Rwanda scheme for illegal immigrants aimed at
controlling UK borders. Not being naïve, when you
look deeper into the policies there is a far-right agenda
driving this group. However, on PA’s website the
group have made it clear that any of their members
who use violence or incite hatred to further their cause
will be expelled from the group. Again, while you, as
I do, disagree with the ideology of PA where some of
their views may seem contentious, unwelcome, and
provocative, as they do not condone violence or incitement to hatred, in a liberal democracy they have
their right to express it.
1. Islamist ideology. Predominantly linked to groups
such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State (aka Daesh);
2. Extreme Far-Left;
3. Involuntary Celibate (aka in-cel)
4. Extreme Far-Right.
Islamist Ideology
It is important to differentiate between the terms
Islamism and Islamic. The term Islamic is related to
the religion of Islam that poses no threat, whereas Islamist is the ideology that can be perceived as extremist. Examples of Islamist groups are Al Qaeda and
Islamic State. Islamist groups are predominantly
Sunni Muslims that follow the Salafist approach to
Islam. Salafis are a strictly orthodox Sunni Muslim sect
advocating a return to the early Islam of the Qur'an
and Sunna. They believe themselves to be the only
correct interpreters of the Qur’an and see moderate
Muslims as infidels. They also seek to convert all Muslims (including Shia and Kurdish Muslims) to ensure
that its one fundamental version of Islam will dominate the world. As we have seen with groups like Islamic State, if they refuse to do this, they will run a
pogrom against the likes of Shia and Kurdish Muslims. Islamists also want to introduce Sharia Law,
which they say is God’s immutable divine law that cannot be criticised but can be contrasted with Fiqh
(human scholarly interpretation). In Sharia Law there
is no freedom of religion, freedom of speech and no
equality rights. Under Sharia Law, criticising or leaving Islam or criticising the Prophet Mohammad is
punishable by death, allows for beating disobedient
wives, public hanging of homosexuals and persecu-
It does appear the terms ‘intolerance’. ‘negate’ and
‘undermine’ widen the parameters of extremism to
include views and beliefs that are outside mainstream
thinking but whose views and ideology is within the
protection of the right to freedom of expression. In
relation to the term ‘undermine’, from the dictionary
definition it means to lessen the effectiveness, power,
or ability of, especially gradually or insidiously. Again,
this term is contentious in relation to determining
what amounts to extremism. For example, a government in the process of legislating on an issue that in itself is controversial is likely to result in protests where
the protesters lawfully assemble (article 11 ECHR) and
express the opposition to that legislation within the
parameters of freedom of expression will want to
lessen the effectiveness and ability of the government
to pass that legislation. To counter this view some will
argue that the desire is to undermine insidiously, but
being insidious is not the only approach taken in
undermining.
An example of how widely the new definition of
extremism is wider was when in May 2024 the former
Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak stated that Scottish Nationalists were extremists because they want to break
up the UK. After expressing this view, at the next
Prime Minister’s questions the leader of the Scottish
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
80
AUGUST 2024
