COMMISSION FOR COUNTERING EXTREMISM

The Home Office appointed, and taxpayer funded, Commission for Countering Extremism has released a new report entitled: Operating with Impunity, Hateful Extremism: The need for a legal framework. The subtitle is telling as, yet again, the aim is to transfer political decisions to judges and lawyers, and to criminalise those voicing politically incorrect opinions.

That such a politically-correct gravy train was created by the Tories is something of which they should be ashamed.

The report was written by Sara Khan, who describes herself as the Lead Commissioner, and Sir Mark Rowley QPM, the former head of Counter Terrorism Policing.

The report refers back to a previous one, stating:

‘The Commission’s flagship report, Challenging Hateful Extremism identified and evidenced a new category of extremist activity, described as “hateful extremism”. This includes:

• Behaviours which incite and amplify hate, or engage in persistent hatred, or equivocate about and make the moral case for violence;

• which draw on hateful, hostile or supremacist beliefs directed at an out-group who are perceived as a threat to the well-being, survival or success of an in-group; and

• cause, or are likely to cause, harm to individuals, communities or wider society.’

All of which is highly subjective.

The report continues:

‘The Commission sought insights from academics and lawyers, and held over 100 meetings with law enforcement agencies, experts, and practitioners across England and Wales. We also engaged with religious leaders, politicians, civil society and free speech organisations, charities, and human rights activists.’

In short, the ruling class and its vested interests were talking amongst themselves. Ordinary people did not get a look in.

The report defines what it means by hateful extremism: ‘For this report and in future, we define hateful extremism as: Activity or materials directed at an out-group who are perceived as a threat to an in-group motivated by or intending to advance a political, religious or racial supremacist ideology: a. To create a climate conducive to hate crime, terrorism or other violence; or b. Attempt to erode or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of our democratic society as protected under Article 17 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).’

Of importance with that definition, is that the Commission condemns any criticism of an ‘out-group’ (eg Muslim immigrants) with a political objective (eg stop mass immigration) or which deviates from the HRA, as interpreted by judges and vested interests, as being ‘hateful extremism’. The report states: ‘In extremist beliefs, understanding shifts to see the out-group as threatening the survival, well-being or success of an in-group, therefore motivating a hostility towards this out-group.’ This bald, cretinous statement is cultural Marxism and not too far away from the Frankfurt School’s Authoritarian Personality (to which a full chapter is devoted in The Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality). For example, the scale of the Third World immigration into the UK is colonisation and does threaten the ‘survival, well-being or success’ of the in-group – the English. Opposition to that colonisation is a perfectly legitimate concern and is a political matter rather than a matter for judges. The UK needs to make a concerted effort to return to a property owning democracy (as advocated by Margaret Thatcher) and away from the beds-in-sheds, lawyers dictatorship it has become.

The report is fixated upon the HRA, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 17 is of particular interest and states: ‘Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.’

With this manoeuvre, the report defines hateful extremism as being in contradiction with the HRA. Disagreeing with the HRA is enough to condemn a line of reasoning as hateful extremism. The report complains that this is ‘currently lawful in Britain’ due to a lack of legislation and complains:

‘In the absence of legislation to address hateful extremism in Britain, it is currently lawful to:

• Intentionally stir up racial hatred, so long as one avoids being threatening, abusive or insulting and, in the case of religious hatred, avoids being threatening when doing so (similar offences with variations apply to other protected characteristics).

• For example: forming a Neo-Nazi extremist group which persistently praises the actions of Adolf Hitler and encourages members to spread Holocaust denial material and antisemitic conspiracy theories, so as long it is not abusive, insulting, or threatening.

• Publish and distribute material to intentionally stir up racial or religious hatred as long as the material avoids being threatening, abusive, or insulting in its content.

• For example: a fascist extremist organisation circulating pamphlets which promote false claims about a “white genocide” intended to stir up hatred against a racial or religious group, but which are not threatening, abusive, or insulting.’

The manner in which Hitler is dragged into things should be noted, as is the link to ‘white genocide’. The colonisation of the West, and of our own countries in particular, is a perfectly legitimate concern and is not hateful extremism. If speech is not ‘threatening, abusive or insulting’ etc then there is no reason for it to be unlawful. Whatever might be deemed intentional by politically-correct police officers is highly subjective. For example, the statement ‘a fascist extremist organisation circulating pamphlets which promote false claims about a “white genocide” intended to stir up hatred against a racial or religious group’ is itself hateful extremism. The statement implies that someone concerned about the plight of the host nation is a ‘fascist extremist’ promoting ‘false claims’ ‘intended to stir up hatred against a racial or religious group’. What if a non-fascist makes those claims in good faith and with the aim of changing national immigration policy? Such a person would end up in court and facing, one assumes, potential imprisonment if the report has its way. This is entirely consistent with Marcuse’s ‘Repressive Tolerance’ essay (to which a full chapter is devoted in The Genesis of Political Correctness). The report is advocating the removal of free speech for those who are Right-wing and the promotion of cultural Marxism.

The report, naturally, is intolerant of free speech on social media, including that which is ‘often subtly disguised, utilising memes or drawings’, and demands that ‘The Online Harms Bill needs to go much further in addressing online hateful extremism and will not in itself offer a sufficiently robust response to the prevalent and appalling hateful extremist activities and material online.’ The report justifies its desire to limit free speech:

‘Freedom of expression does not protect statements that unlawfully discriminate against, harass, or stir up violence or hatred against other persons and groups, particularly by reference to their race, religious belief, gender or sexual orientation. Nor is anyone permitted to use their right to freedom of expression to limit or undermine the human rights of others. As case law demonstrates, freedom of expression may be restricted where the action in question will result in a denigration of the rights of others.’

The sentence about human rights is important, as it indicates the direction of travel (see below). The report further advocates ‘a whole society response’ and that ‘there is insufficient action taken against persistent extremist individuals and organisations who play a leading and influential role in radicalisation, recruitment and in propagating hateful extremist narratives with the intention of creating a climate conducive to hate crime, terrorism, or violence; or who are attempting to erode and even destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of our democracy’, and that more action is needed and should ‘include use of the law’. What constitutes being ‘conducive’ is highly subjective, and the mission creep should be noted.

The report sets out a ‘primary’ recommendation ‘for the Government to commission work to develop a legal framework to counter hateful extremist activity to enable law enforcement, regulatory, and other statutory bodies to ensure there is a more effective response. Such a framework will facilitate a new operational infrastructure that would be embedded across institutions to ensure a robust and transparent response to hateful extremism guided by the law. We recognise constructing such a framework will be a complex but necessary piece of work and requires in-depth legal knowledge and expertise.’ In other words, the report’s authors want a witch-hunt against those deemed politically incorrect by all agencies of the state, the manner of which should be decided upon by experts who should be paid accordingly. As well they might. Agencies specifically identified for the witch-hunt include, Ofsted, the Charity Commission and Ofcom, and ‘those in technology, education, or non-governmental and faith-based approaches’. The report demands the witch-hunt to ‘impact across this whole ecosystem of hateful extremist actors and their enablers’. The Commission does not believe that the current Inquisition has gone far enough.

The previous report, Challenging Hateful Extremism, contains a thank you from Sara Khan to some who helped and this gives a useful insight into her lack of impartiality. She wrote:

‘My Expert Group has been invaluable, and I have been honoured to receive advice from such a group of talented and knowledgeable individuals. At the time of writing, the expert group includes: Chetan Bhatt, Emman El-Badawy, Fiyaz Mughal, Hilary Pilkington, Jamie Bartlett, Julian Hargreaves, Mark Rowley, Nick Lowles, Peter Tatchell, Pragna Patel, Sasha Havlicek, Simon Blackburn, and Sunder Katwala. They are not the only experts I have consulted; I am equally grateful to all those who were willing to spare me their time. While this report reflects my views not theirs, I hope they recognise how their contributions strengthened it.’

In May 2019, Sara Khan spoke at the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right Conference, in which she said that her Commission was ‘working on a study into all forms of extremism for the Home Secretary’. She told the conference that there was ‘a patchwork of dangerous individuals and groups who spread hatred and intolerance’, and:

‘We are also witnessing a worrying mainstreaming of intolerance and prejudice. These different phenomena are all linked by ideas, networks and the harm they cause to individuals, communities and wider society. I want us to develop a toolkit of tailored and effective responses to counter-extremism … Today at this conference we are considering the threat we face from the far right or radical right.’

Collins defines radical thus: ‘favouring or tending to produce extreme or fundamental changes in political, economic, or social conditions, institutions, habits of mind etc: a radical party’; and right (in a political sense) thus: ‘conservative or reactionary’. It is not a criminal offence to be either a Conservative or to believe that radical change is needed. It is not even a criminal offence to be far right. The Tories have set up and funded with taxpayer’s money a commission to persecute those ‘individuals and groups’ deemed far right or radical right. Sara Khan herself told the conference the importance attached to ‘long-term and sustainable funding’.

The report stressed the importance of Article 17 of the ECHR and the HRA. Anne Owers wrote in 2003 for Justice that the introduction of the HRA meant that the provisions of the ECHR were now ‘directly enforceable in the UK’. A consequence of that is:

‘Refugees and asylum-seekers will now gain the additional protection of Article 3 of the ECHR, which prohibits torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Not only does it forbid states from carrying out these practices themselves; it also prevents them from returning anyone to another country where they face a risk of being subjected to such treatment.’

Furthermore:

‘There are no exceptions to the protection offered by Article 3. People can be refused refugee status, or deported, if they are held to be threats to national security, or if they have committed criminal offences. Article 3 does not permit any such exemptions. Once the risk of Article 3 mistreatment has been established, it is an absolute bar to return.’

Furthermore:

‘The other ECHR article that may come into play is Article 8, the right to private and family life. So far, it has had a limited application in immigration and asylum. It does not automatically allow entry to the relatives of those already in the UK, or prevent the deportation of those who have established family ties while in the country. But there are circumstances in which it can be of assistance. If a family can only be reunited in this country, because it is unsafe for one family member to return to where the rest of the family is living, then Article 8 rights may be used to assist family reunion in the UK. This would be particularly important for asylum-seekers who are given exceptional leave to remain, rather than full refugee status, and who cannot immediately and automatically be joined by their families. If an asylum-seeker has put down family roots in the UK while the application has been considered, and particularly if children are born in the country to a mixed-nationality couple, it may not be feasible for them all to return to the asylum-seeker’s country. And the longer the family has been here, the more likely it is that their rights to private life would be breached by forcing them to leave. Similarly, a child who is ill, or at a critical stage in education, would face a breach to private-life rights if forced to leave with his or her parents.’

Since Anne Owers wrote this, in 2003, the judges have been positively imaginative in the excuses used to keep illegal immigrants in the UK. To give just three examples, firstly, the seven Nigerian stowaways who caused the tanker Nave Andromeda to be bordered by SBS commandos off the Isle of Wight, lodged asylum claims to stay in the UK. Criminal charges against them were dropped by the CPS, who claimed there was ‘insufficient evidence’.

Secondly, a certain Tolga Binbuga, who came to Britain at the age of nine, had a list of convictions for robbery, burglary, assault, criminal damage and shoplifting. Thanks to a number of expensive and ultimately successful appeals to immigration tribunals over a period of five years, succeeded in staying in the UK despite government attempts to deport him. One judge declared that as ‘in various parts of London, gang culture is an accepted and widespread part of life for many young people’ then Binbuga’s association with one such gang was ‘a good example of his integration into one of the less savoury aspects of UK life’.

Thirdly, one victim of a grooming gang in Rochdale had expected her attackers to be deported. Instead she encountered one in the supermarket. The girl had been only 13 when she became pregnant by Adil Khan, 50. He and his accomplices, all of whom had dual British and Pakistani citizenship, were convicted of rape, abuse and torture of girls.

There are many who might believe that those immigrants who enter this country illegally and/or commit a serious crimes should be deported without exception. But, according to the definition adopted by the Commission for Countering Extremism’s report, then such a belief would constitute ‘hateful extremism’ for being a breach of Article 17 (HRA and ECHR), and, in consequence those people who voice this belief would have their right to free speech removed and would be subject to ‘a whole society response’, conviction and, ultimately, one assumes, imprisonment. The criminals would be the victims.

The Commission for Countering Extremism, set up by the Tories, is a politically-correct gravy train and should be immediately defunded. The report should be unequivocally rejected.