Finland, Sweden + NATO

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I don't know that it should be specific. It's illegal here (and several Scandi protesters have been banned from the UK) on basically the same grounds that some Islamists protests would be illegal (and several radical Islamists from overseas have been banned from the UK).

It's general public order legislation - I think largely from the 80s and designed to target football hooligans. It's not a totally laissez faire approach to speech - but I don't know in Scandinavia but my view is broadly if you can stop radical Islamist hate preachers, then you should also be able to stop people hatefully protesting against Muslims. Otherwise it's one way and specific in the other direction.

On the rainbow flag - I think context would matter. A queer Muslim group (of which there are several in the UK) doing that has a very different meaning than a gay skinhead outside a big mosque.

[Admiral Yi]

What constitutes hate preaching?

[Sheilbh]

Fair question as it's used a lot in the UK for extremist radical Islamist preachers - but I'm not sure what it normally actually means. For me preaching hatred towards, say, gays, Jews, anything that would harass or threaten those groups (or other groups in society), inspire their follows to harass or commit violence against them or preaching violence more generally.

I think it was also used to ban Fred Phelps from entering the UK, for example.

[Admiral Yi]

So something like "Allah doesn't want you to fuck another man" would qualify?

[Sheilbh]

So something like "Allah doesn't want you to fuck another man" would qualify?

No, of course not. "Allah wants you to stone gays" or "Jews are lower than snakes" would qualify.

[Josquius]

Indeed. It would be dishonest to deny that due to the combination of xenophobs targeting Muslims and the likeliness of violent reaction from Muslims, our societies are facing a very real risk of regression when it comes to our freedoms limited on religious grounds. The state making Koran burnings illegal is the state confirming that the Koran is sacred.

Less it's sacred and more we don't want the fuss of extremists trying to rile each other up.

[Tamas]

Indeed. It would be dishonest to deny that due to the combination of xenophobs targeting Muslims and the likeliness of violent reaction from Muslims, our societies are facing a very real risk of regression when it comes to our freedoms limited on religious grounds. The state making Koran burnings illegal is the state confirming that the Koran is sacred.

Less it's sacred and more we don't want the fuss of extremists trying to rile each other up.

It's essentially done to avoid violence which means the state is coerced by religious fanatics to make legislation supporting their views.

[Josquius]

Indeed. It would be dishonest to deny that due to the combination of xenophobs targeting Muslims and the likeliness of violent reaction from Muslims, our societies are facing a very real risk of regression when it comes to our freedoms limited on religious grounds. The state making Koran burnings illegal is the state confirming that the Koran is sacred.

Less it's sacred and more we don't want the fuss of extremists trying to rile each other up.

It's essentially done to avoid violence which means the state is coerced by religious fanatics to make legislation supporting their views.

Which is a sensible thing to do.
Fanatics want to do something with the express purpose of just trying to cause instability in society and with zero innocent explanation... Yeah. They're a threat to peace. Lock them up.
As Sheilbh says it goes both ways. It can't just be Muslim hate preachers we don't let do their thing. The white far right are a much bigger issue.

[Sheilbh]

It's essentially done to avoid violence which means the state is coerced by religious fanatics to make legislation supporting their views.

Here it was legislation to arrest football hooligans before they were violent. It is the same legislation that's been used to effectively ban Quran burning have been used against the BNP, anti-Scientology protestors, Catholic pro-life protesters and a student who called a police horse "gay" The case against the student was dropped, although the CPS defended the case on the grounds that he was making homophobic comments that were deemed offensive by passers-by.

Now admittedly I think it's probably fair to say the law is a little too broadly drafted

There is a proposal (backed by most Tory and Lib Dem MPs) to more clearly demarcate what's criminal and what's just offensive which sounds sensible. But I don't fundamentally have an issue with the law stopping extremists whatever their preference.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The white far right are a much bigger issue.

No they're not.

[Josquius]

The white far right are a much bigger issue.

No they're not.

Hard data and the word of western intelligence services suggests different.

[Sheilbh]

Hard data and the word of western intelligence services suggests different.

That's not true in the UK - according to those agencies. There are some areas of the country where far-right extremism is the major counter-extremism threat, such as Wales and, I think, the North-East. To an extent that probably reflects demographics in that they're not particularly diverse places. It is an area that they're having to devote more resources too.

However in most of the country, but especially London, the Midlands the North-West, it is still Islamist extremism that is the major threat and focus of more than half their reseources. Though, again, far-right extremism has grown as a focus. Again to an extent that just reflects demographics. It is also probably reflected in the fact that London is, despite its reputation, the most socially conservative part of the country in polling on attitudes to sex, sexuality and gender (which isn't just about Islam either).

What I think is probably more relevant is that the process of radicalisation seems to be very, very similar as do the people who are radicalised.

Of course the other point is that while the threat from the far-right has grown (and it is still secondary to extremist Islamism), is that the third category that has grown more quickly than those two is the "mixed, unclear or unstable". I think there's proposals to remove them from counter-extremism and treat that as less of an intelligence more of an everyday policing issue because as the name suggests they're not really ideologically coherent, they tend not to be in groups. It's still overwhelmingly young men but it's sort of the young man online self-radicalising in various often quite unpredictable ways. Also at least on the studies of incels there's online crimes that looking at again and women need more protection but in terms of physical acts apparently the studies in the area show a lot more self-harm than violence (which is not true of the far-right or extremist Islamist terrorists) - so it maybe needs looking at differently. Perhaps the intervention for the "mixed, unclear or unstable" is more likely to be psychological/mental health rather than community groups who can help someone away from radicalising.

[Josquius]

Hard data and the word of western intelligence services suggests different.

That's not true in the UK - according to those agencies. There are some areas of the country where far-right extremism is the major counter-extremism threat, such as Wales and, I think, the North-East. To an extent that probably reflects demographics in that they're not particularly diverse places. It is an area that they're having to devote more resources too.

However in most of the country, but especially London, the Midlands the North-West, it is still Islamist extremism that is the major threat and focus of more than half their reseources. Though, again, far-right extremism has grown as a focus. Again to an extent that just reflects demographics. It is also probably reflected in the fact that London is, despite its reputation, the most socially conservative part of the country in polling on attitudes to sex, sexuality and gender (which isn't just about Islam either).

What I think is probably more relevant is that the process of radicalisation seems to be very, very similar as do the people who are radicalised.

Of course the other point is that while the threat from the far-right has grown (and it is still secondary to extremist Islamism), is that the third category that has grown more quickly than those two is the "mixed, unclear or unstable". I think there's proposals to remove them from counter-extremism and treat that as less of an intelligence more of an everyday policing issue because as the name suggests they're not really ideologically coherent, they tend not to be in groups. It's still overwhelmingly young men but it's sort of the young man online self-radicalising in various often quite unpredictable ways. Also at least on the studies of incels there's online crimes that looking at again and women need more protection but in terms of physical acts apparently the studies in the area show a lot more self-harm than violence (which is not true of the far-right or extremist Islamist terrorists) - so it maybe needs looking at differently. Perhaps the intervention for the "mixed, unclear or unstable" is more likely to be psychological/mental health rather than community groups who can help someone away from radicalising.

There's a long standing heavy focus on Islamic extremism which isn't going away over night, its where they have a lot of legacy resources focussed.
But it is recognised that the growing threat is from the white far right rather than the Islamic far right and resources are shifting this way. Lots of stuff out there discussing this e.g.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/44185/interview-richard-dearlovei-spy-nationalism

"The Islamist terrorist threat is obviously serious but containable and ultimately manageable," Dearlove told me in an email the day after the attack. "We have to keep a sense of proportion about it; successful terrorist attacks have been few in number. The situation would only change with several mass casualty incidents which would threaten that sense of proportion and drive society towards an extreme response. At the moment I judge that as unlikely to happen. Containment of the threat with occasional failures can continue almost indefinitely."

Dearlove told me that despite the terrorist threat to Britain, it is not the most serious challenge the country faces. "The deterioration of European politics, with the rise of parties on the extreme right, is a far more serious problem for the UK. It is not in the UK's national interest to see continental Europe being split apart by the revival of nationalist movements as a post-Brexit Britain returns to a mid-Atlantic rather than continental orientation to its foreign policy.

As I've said before Prevent are actively going around visiting schools where teachers tell me their chat is basically "You think terrorist you think a frothing mouthed muslim guy with a beard blowing himself up. The bigger threat is from more mundane looking white guys who've fell down an internet rabbit hole and are quietly becoming detached from society and building an ideology of victimhood."

Also worth remembering that ultimately the aim of Islamic extremists in the west is to build more support for the white far right and push for more Islamophobic reactionary policies. Even when its an Islamic fundamentalist killing people it all comes back to Nazis.

[crazy canuck]

Tamas raises a good point.

If the concern is avoiding societal conflict, why not criminalize the burning of any religious texts, with a small carve out for religions that burn their texts during the course of a ceremony. I don't know if that exists but to the extent that's a concern it can be dealt with in the legislation.

[Sheilbh]

There's a long standing heavy focus on Islamic extremism which isn't going away over night, its where they have a lot of legacy resources focussed.
But it is recognised that the growing threat is from the white far right rather than the Islamic far right and resources are shifting this way. Lots of stuff out there discussing this e.g.


[...]

As I've said before Prevent are actively going around visiting schools where teachers tell me their chat is basically "You think terrorist you think a frothing mouthed muslim guy with a beard blowing himself up. The bigger threat is from more mundane looking white guys who've fell down an internet rabbit hole and are quietly becoming detached from society and building an ideology of victimhood."

Also worth remembering that ultimately the aim of Islamic extremists in the west is to build more support for the white far right and push for more Islamophobic reactionary policies. Even when its an Islamic fundamentalist killing people it all comes back to Nazis.

Yeah I don't dispute that - my point is that more than half of their resources are still focused on extremist Islamists and that there are big regional differences. Though I don't think that's fully Dearlove's point.

And I'd add whether it is Islamist extremist or far right - it's very often young men who've fallen down internet rabbit holes, quietly becoming detached from society and building an ideology of victimhood. That's what I mean by the people being radicalised and the process of radicalisation being basically the same whether far-right or extremist Islamist.

I totally disagree on the ultimate aim of Islamist extremists. There may be an element of hoping to provoke a response that demonstrates their point. I don't think that's their ultimate goal, on an ideological goal I think their ultimate goal is an extremist Islamist state (on a personal level for both I suspect it's more almost existential/sense of action) not the knock-on effects within x countries politics. I generally think if people are willing to kill or die for a cause they're normally intending to do it for the cause, not some other more tactical reason.