The recent appointment of Sara Khan to head the new commission for countering extremism has led to a fair share of debate. Where however, there is consensus, is that the task ahead will be a difficult one. Much work needs to be done to understand and prevent the prevalence of the extremism that contributed to five incidents of terrorism on British soil last year.
A good place to begin is with the definitions of extremism and terrorism themselves. Gone are the days when international terrorism operated independently of domestic extremism. Yet government departments still work on the basis that foreign training is key, and individuals radicalise in training camps in Afghanistan or Pakistan, rather than in the privacy of their own homes.
A recent report by Max Hill, QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, revealed, for example, that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) only considers international terrorism, and not domestic extremism, when it determines the national threat level in the UK. Yet domestic extremism is the mood music for terrorism, increasingly evidenced by the frequency of “homegrown” threats: 21 terror plots have been disrupted in the UK since 2013. That the JTAC does not consider this in its threat reports is concerning. However, they are not the only ones muddled with different terms. Currently there are three working definitions of extremism: one used by the Association of Chief Police Officers, one from the Prevent strategy, and one from the National Domestic Extremism Unit. A call in 2012 by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to consolidate these definitions has yet to be answered.
A better definition of extremism and terrorism must consider the changing nature of this space. Section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 focuses on the dissemination of terrorist publications, but this offence has developed and evolved online. Search engines like Google must consider removing this content as publishers, rather than becoming the go-to platform exploited by extremists who choose to advertise there. A clearer understanding, with case studies and examples, of what extremism does and does not constitute will embolden appropriate laws that incorporate penalties for continuing to host extremist content.
Take the case in April and May 2016 of Tower Hamlets and “B”, the latter so named to protect the identity of the minor involved. B was determined to join Islamic State and was stopped by counterterrorism command at the eleventh hour from boarding a flight to Syria. It was found that B radicalised herself through a combination of her father’s interest in the grievances against Palestinians in Gaza, which she translated into humanitarian work she wanted to do in Islamic State, and extremist content found on the family’s laptop. Some of this material was so instructional and graphic that possession of it contravened section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. That this child could find information online that was of practical benefit to anyone interested in carrying out a terrorist attack, and so easily, should surprise no one. It is all still available on a Google search.
Advertisement
When it comes to extremism, there is a tendency to keep “lessons learned” within the family because of ideas of shame and honour that sharing such information could entail. The family of B, for example, declined assistance from Channel, the Government’s counterextremism support system. The counterextremism commission must understand the conversations that normalise extremism at home to help fight the potent ideology that plays a critical role in enabling violence, be it far right, Islamist, or misconstrued notions of honour and shame. Doing so could involve a similar model to the work started by Dame Louise Casey in 2012, when she interviewed troubled families across six local authorities who shared their stories for us to better understand the hindrances to their advancement.
Yet, as was the case in the Casey review, any proposed changes to battle extremism will mean nothing if the government is not held accountable when they fail to engage and assist troubled families. The review found that for over ten years, the UK failed to ensure social integration kept in line with the pace and scale of immigration, allowing local communities to become increasingly divided. A lack of integration walks hand in hand with a rise in extremism. However, a year after its publication, absolutely nothing has been done to deepen community cohesion. David Cameron’s pledge to offer more English-language training to communities that need it most has yet to be enacted, almost two years after it was promised.
To battle extremism effectively, we must first understand it. This includes consolidating existing definitions and understanding the links between extremism and terrorism in a clear way. The consequences of hosting extremist material online must be made more clear. It also means assisting those troubled families who may be at risk of extremism. To do this, promises made to better integrate those who need assistance in the past should be built on and fulfilled, not ignored.
Nikita Malik is the Director of the Centre for the Response to Radicalisation and Terrorism at the Henry Jackson Society