Sunak says people who show extreme hatred of UK could be deradicalised

Robert

Test Star
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Runs
37,663
Post of the Week
1
It’s interesting that he thinks Islamism is still the main terrorist threat - I read that far-right nationalist terrorism is on the rise.

==

Rishi Sunak’s proposals to strengthen the government’s anti-terrorism programme risk “straying into thought crimes” and are potentially damaging to national security, a former senior police chief has said.

The former chancellor announced measures to beef up the Prevent programme on Tuesday night, as part of a bid to boost his flagging campaign to succeed Boris Johnson as the next prime minister.

These would lead to more people being referred to Prevent by widening the definition of “extremism” to include those who “vilify” Britain, with Sunak pledging to focus on “rooting out those who are vocal in their hatred of our country”.

But former counter-terrorism chief Sir Peter Fahy, who was also chief constable of Greater Manchester police, questioned the precise meaning of “vilification”.

He said: “The widening of Prevent could damage its credibility and reputation. It makes it more about people’s thoughts and opinions.

“It is straying into thought crimes and political opinions.”

He added: “Political opposition is not where police should be, it is those who pose a serious threat and risk of violence, not those opposed to political systems.”

Sunak said on Tuesday night that “Britain is a beacon of freedom, tolerance and diversity,” warning against ever “letting those who seek to undermine and destroy our way of life to succeed”.

He said he would refocus the Prevent programme to tackle Islamist extremism, what he called the UK’s “most significant terror threat”.

He also promised to “weed out and cut off organisations that are promoting extremism in the UK”, and added: “There is no more important duty for a prime minister than keeping our country and our people safe.”

Extremism is defined in the 2011 Prevent strategy as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”, as well as calls for the death of armed forces personnel.

Sunak’s team vowed to broaden that out to include “vilification of the UK” to ensure “those with an extreme hatred of our country that leads them to pose a risk to national security can be identified and diverted away from a destructive path”.

They stressed it was not a legally binding definition and simply criticising the government or any of its policies would not count as vilification but instead “help guide the public sector in its work to keep the UK safe”.

Prevent previously ran into controversy over whether it should cover those criticising UK foreign policy, and British conduct in the 2003 Iraq war. In recent years the police side of Prevent has tried to focus much more on those at risk of falling into terrorist violence.

Those in the public sector are under a duty to report concerns to Prevent, which has previously caused consternation. Their information is the lifeblood of the counter radicalisation scheme, which has been dogged by claims it has strayed in suppressing freedom of thought and speech.

More Prevent referrals linked to far-right extremism than Islamist
Fahy said: “The danger is the perception it creates that teachers and health workers are involved in state surveillance.”

“What does vilification mean? Vilification would have to be carefully defined.”

Former counter-terrorism chief Neil Basu said that Prevent was the most important strand of the UK’s battle about violent extremism. A review of the programme ordered by the government has been delivered to officials but there is no public timetable for its publication.

Sunak’s pledges to improve security include blocking terrorists from trying to “abuse our human rights framework” by classifying them differently from the general prison population via a new bill of rights; auditing publicly-funded third-party organisations to ensure no extremist groups gets taxpayer cash; and funnelling off those referred to Prevent who are more in need of mental health support.

“Whether redoubling our efforts to tackle Islamist extremism or rooting out those who are vocal in their hatred of our country, I will do whatever it takes to fulfil that duty,” he said.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...lice-chief-attacks-rishi-sunaks-prevent-plans
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another Tory pandering to the usual far right Tory voter base and essentially saying look at me I am brown I am acceptable
 
People who show extreme hatred for the UK? Apparently they are just holding the goverment to account and actually care about the country. They are just misunderstood.
 
Another Tory pandering to the usual far right Tory voter base and essentially saying look at me I am brown I am acceptable

He still won't be good enough to be PM, best him or Priti can do is be the voice for Anglo Saxons on immigration.
 
He had to do something to please the right wing. So far most of his policies have been bordering on leftist/center. A bout of uncle Tomism might do his campaign abit of good.
 
He had to do something to please the right wing. So far most of his policies have been bordering on leftist/center. A bout of uncle Tomism might do his campaign abit of good.

He isn’t targeting Islam though, have a read of this para in the OP.

Extremism is defined in the 2011 Prevent strategy as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”, as well as calls for the death of armed forces personnel.

This means half the country are extremists for not supporting Ukraine, and criticising Liberalism, this includes right-wing Tories supporters, and centrist Labour supporters.

What have I been saying all along? Freedom of speech is a myth in the UK, we live in an authoritarian society.

Plus, it is the Guardian, the leftist of lefty liberalism. Pure sensationalism. Though liberals should be tried for treason for trying to overturn a democratic result in 2016.

:)
 
Last edited:
He still won't be good enough to be PM, best him or Priti can do is be the voice for Anglo Saxons on immigration.

He lost his chance the moment he stabbed Boris in the back. The entire tax avoidance with his wife had blown over, but he completely miscalculated his final move.

Plus, he doesn’t even need to appease the Right-Wing, all he has to do to is pledge lower taxes, which he cannot, even if he does, no one will believe him, given he has been persistent in rejecting tax cuts since he was Chancellor.
 
He still won't be good enough to be PM, best him or Priti can do is be the voice for Anglo Saxons on immigration.

You think the "Anglo Saxons" are a homogenous group who are all racists, Cap?

What about the Celts and the Anglo-Celts? They all racist too?
 
Wasn't he an ideological extremist?

“Jaswant Singh Chail, from Southampton who had identified himself as “Indian Sikh” who wanted to “assassinate” the monarch in revenge for the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre at the time, has also been charged with threats to kill and possession of an offensive weapon. He is in police custody and will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on August 17.“

https://www.hindustantimes.com/citi...charged-with-treason-101659468487975-amp.html
 
“Jaswant Singh Chail, from Southampton who had identified himself as “Indian Sikh” who wanted to “assassinate” the monarch in revenge for the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre at the time, has also been charged with threats to kill and possession of an offensive weapon. He is in police custody and will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on August 17.“

https://www.hindustantimes.com/citi...charged-with-treason-101659468487975-amp.html
So didn't menace HRH Queen Elizabeth, actively sought to maim her!. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre which included only one group it seems. Just as 'Asian recognition month' of whatever it is has become an excuse for prancing buffoons
 
This contest has brought out the absolute worst in Rishi Sunak. He’s completely lost the plot.
 
This contest has brought out the absolute worst in Rishi Sunak. He’s completely lost the plot.

He’s trying to out-gammon Truss who was always going to beat him in that dotty constituency of nearly all white over-sixties.
 
You think the "Anglo Saxons" are a homogenous group who are all racists, Cap?

What about the Celts and the Anglo-Celts? They all racist too?

I didn't say they were all racists though. Maybe I should have just said white Brits, would that have been more accurate? Anyway, ethnics have to take into consideration white opposition to immigration. That doesn't mean all white people are racist, but clearly a majority oppose immigration. That is why Nigel Farage was emboldened to produce the racist posters showing floods of darker hued peasants queueing at the borders.
 
I didn't say they were all racists though. Maybe I should have just said white Brits, would that have been more accurate? Anyway, ethnics have to take into consideration white opposition to immigration. That doesn't mean all white people are racist, but clearly a majority oppose immigration. That is why Nigel Farage was emboldened to produce the racist posters showing floods of darker hued peasants queueing at the borders.

Putin has used Anglo-Saxon in a perjorative way recently, which I consider to be a racist statement intended to divide.

I don’t think a majority of white Britons oppose immigration. They oppose what they perceive to be uncontrolled immigration and loss of what they perceive to be British identity.

As for Farage with his repurposed Nazi Germany poster, was that a reflection of society or an attempt to stimulate its worst and most base instincts?
 
Yes if you could just somehow get rid of those over 60 whites.

Point is that the new PM is going to be appointed by a small constituency which does not represent the demographic of the UK.
 
Rishi Sunak's Prevent proposals are truly Orwellian

Rishi Sunak’s announcement that he would use Prevent - the government’s counter-extremism strategy - against those who "vilified" Britain has attracted much derision.

At the same time, he proposed the redirection of Prevent away from right-wing extremism, to the dismay of researchers and teachers. They have identified a rising number of referrals associated with right-wing extremism and a lowering of the age at which young people are accessing extremist material online.

The issue is not to seek an 'equal opportunities' Prevent - one applied to the right-wing as well as to supposed 'Islamists' - but to understand how Prevent undermines the rights of everyone

Sunak also proposed that there should be a "weeding out" of charities and organisations that supported extremism.

This has been widely viewed as "red meat" for Tory members as he seeks to close the gap with Liz Truss in the Tory leadership battle. Her response was interesting. She thought it was all a bit "thin" and a restatement of what was already government policy.

She is right. For those who think this is a sign of worrying authoritarianism to come, it is a wake-up call about what is already in place.

The issue is not to seek an "equal opportunities" Prevent - one applied to the right-wing as well as to supposed "Islamists" - but to understand how Prevent undermines the rights of everyone.

It is also important to understand how Prevent (and wider counter-terrorism legislation) generates a moral panic about children and young people.

'Adultification' of Black children
The shocking treatment of Child Q and other children has cast a light on the "adultification" of Black children. This is also a feature of Prevent applied to ethnic minority children more generally. If not strip-searched, they are nonetheless regularly subject to interview by counter-terrorism police without a responsible adult being present.

This is occurring to thousands of children each year. Yet they are not under suspicion of a terrorism offence, only of potentially coming under the influence of an extremist "ideology".

But what of the reports that a child as young as 13 has been found guilty of a terrorist offence? First, let us recall that the Home Office’s internal review of the Prevent Strategy in 2011 expressed no concern about the radicalisation of children and no concern about publicly-funded schools.

This changed after the Birmingham Trojan Horse affair, which was used to establish a Prevent safeguarding duty on all public authorities, including schools.

Children under 15 make up around a third of all referrals (there were 7,318 referrals in total in 2017-18, the last full year before Covid, and fewer than five percent were deemed serious enough to warrant a Channel intervention).

What has also changed is that the government passed a new Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act in 2019. This was widely criticised at the time, including by Liberty, for introducing new non-violent terrorism offences such as the "reckless" expression of support for a proscribed organisation, the publication of associated images (such as flags), and viewing material over the internet (which can include just one viewing).

The government is now discovering that this act is drawing in more right-wing offenders than "Islamists".

But it is not clear what the role of Prevent would be for identifying supposed precursor indicators. After all, the issue is not online access at school - this is already monitored - and the problem of the legislation is that an individual passes easily and quickly to (possibly inadvertently) commit an offence.

'Pop-up' ads
We anticipate the government plans to take action under the Protect and Pursue strands of its counter-terrorism strategy, rather than Prevent.

This would involve the use of data analytics to provide Home Office "pop-up" ads for individuals who meet a specified profile warning them about going further. This is already done for pre-crime knife interventions (say, a 16-year-old male accessing an online DIY site receiving a message, asking if he is looking for a knife and warning not to proceed).

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act (2019) also included a clause requiring an Independent Review of Prevent. This was to be the first review of Prevent since 2011. Indeed, the extensive powers it embodies have no statutory oversight (as is the case of terrorism legislation for which there is an independent reviewer and annual reports).

However, the government has subverted its independence (by the appointment of William Shawcross), leading to a boycott by Muslim civil society organisations and wider human rights groups. They have also delayed the report. In the meantime, they have been pressing ahead with changes to Prevent. I will detail a few of these before returning to the issue of right-wing extremism.

The first is the refocusing of the Home Office on Prevent in its security aspects. This is indicated by the closure of the Building a Stronger Britain Together programme and the concentration of community cohesion activities in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities, where Sarah Khan was appointed in March 2021 as an independent adviser for social cohesion and resilience.

Khan was formerly the head of the Commission for Countering Extremism in the Home Office. An interim head, Robin Simcox, was appointed in March 2021. He has strong links with neo-conservative and far-right think tanks.

His first announcement was the need to redefine the policy toward right-wing extremism to distinguish far-right groups who operated within the law which, he claimed, were part of normal democratic politics. In the period since his appointment, the commission has been largely inactive, judging by its recently published annual report.

Denied public funding
It has recently been announced that Simcox will be the new head of the Commission for Countering Extremism. But what will its role be? A clue is found in Sunak’s statement. It mirrors a recent report from Policy Exchange which recommends that its role should be research into extremism, countering criticisms, and evaluating and providing certification for NGOs in terms of their alignment with government policy.

Those that are not properly aligned should be denied public funding and engagement by government and local authorities alike. Their only targeted organisations are Muslim NGOs which they describe as "Islamist", notwithstanding their express commitment to democratic and lawful means. The Commission for Countering Extremism is designed to function in a manner equivalent to George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

The Commission for Countering Extremism is designed to function in a manner equivalent to George Orwell’s 'Ministry of Truth'

This is what it means to redirect the focus of Prevent, and it is already in train.

But the nature of democratic and lawful means is also in question in the context of the new Public Order Bill and the creation of new criminal offences associated with extra-parliamentary action.

In effect, new laws create a new set of offences, and new offences create a widened penumbra of pre-crime behaviours or attitudes in which the Prevent strategy sits.

So, at the same time as there is an intention to refocus away from right-wing extremism, there is an expansion of concern elsewhere. This is more or less where Sunak put it, and why Truss said that what he was proposing was nothing new.

The Department for Education’s guidelines as to what counts as extremism in curriculum material are very clear: “schools should not under any circumstances work with external agencies that take or promote extreme positions or use materials produced by such agencies.

"Examples of extreme positions include, but are not limited to: promoting non-democratic political systems rather than those based on democracy, whether for political or religious reasons or otherwise; teaching that requirements of English civil or criminal law may be disregarded whether for political or religious reasons or otherwise; engaging in or encouraging active or persistent harassment or intimidation of individuals in support of their cause; promoting divisive or victim narratives that are harmful to British society; selecting and presenting information to make unsubstantiated accusations against state institutions.”

Fever dream
I have emphasised how the definition includes religion as a category alongside politically extremist positions. But notice the last two categories that relate to so-called "woke" criticisms of structural racism, as well as to accusations against state institutions.

I have already indicated that the implication of the government’s ignoring of right-wing extremism online is partly because it is taking place outside schools, colleges, and other publicly regulated spaces. There are things that schools could do, such as anti-racist education.

This has been systematically dismantled by the government in the sense that it provides no directed support for it and local authorities that used to take the lead have no responsibility for academy schools (which make up three-quarters of all secondary schools in England).

More concerning, however, is the fact that it is anti-racism that the government defines as extremist and not racism.

Recent announcements have not been a fever dream brought on by the politics of the Conservative leadership race from which we shall all wake up and return to reality once a new leader is announced in September.

The fever dream is the reality we are currently living.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-rishi-sunak-prevent-proposals-truly-orwellian
 
"Extreme hatred of UK" itself is subjective. Does criticizing government policies come under "hatred"?
 
Rishi Sunak’s announcement that he would use Prevent - the government’s counter-extremism strategy - against those who "vilified" Britain has attracted much derision.

At the same time, he proposed the redirection of Prevent away from right-wing extremism, to the dismay of researchers and teachers. They have identified a rising number of referrals associated with right-wing extremism and a lowering of the age at which young people are accessing extremist material online.

Tory brown MPs are truly an embarrassment for the south Asian diaspora. They are bunged forward to deal with immigration to say the stuff white people don't want to say publicly, and now this. The problem is, inadvertently by tailoring these campaigns towards the majority white electorate, they are more or less saying that most white people believe racists are okay, it's only ethnics who are a problem.
 
Back
Top