By Yoohyun Son
The threat from extremism in the UK has been steadily growing for many years. In March 2024, the UK government formed a new definition of extremism, outlining it as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance”. From the London bombings of 2005, the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox in 2016 and the murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess in 2021, to the Manchester Arena bombing, extremist political violence is a considerable national concern. Indeed, the national threat level established by the British government is currently “substantial”. Whilst the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) reduced the UK national terrorism threat level from severe to substantial in early 2022, the UK is continuing to experience a changing face of extreme violence.
Last July, known terror-threat Axel Rudakubana murdered three girls at a Taylor Swift themed dance class in Southport. British counter-terrorism forces were aware of Rudakubana as a potential threat before the attacks, and in the wake of the attacks, the perpetrator admitted to terrorism offences for downloading al-Qaeda training materials. Despite Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s acknowledgement that this act constituted a “new threat” and his declaration that “terrorism has changed” in Britain, the incident has not been treated as such in the courts. The judge at Liverpool Crown Court urged that it must be accepted that there was no evidence of terrorist cause.
Confusion and dispute over how extremism and terrorism are defined is not new, but becomes an increasingly pressing issue as new forms of violence pervade public life. Extremism and terrorism are continuously miscategorised even by those in government, and it is important to recognise the distinction between them. Beyond just the typical forms of religious and political violence which have caused concern in the past, there is growing concern over the threat of violence against groups such as women and trans people, as well as violence from notorious environmentalist activists. In accordance with this, there have been calls to widen the government’s definition of extremism, which have been turned down by Home Office minister Dan Jarvis.
Caroline Mala Corbin, Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, examines the role of unconscious cognitive biases in the production of stereotypes, such as the stereotype of the “Muslim terrorist”. She outlines another strand, which focuses on white privilege, such as the privilege of avoiding the terrorist label. Of course, there are wider concerns about terrorism beyond false narratives such as “all terrorists are Muslim” and “no whites are terrorists”. We can look to the case of Rudakubana to understand how the spread of disinformation sparked riots across the UK. Hours after the Southport attack, an account on X called ‘Europe Invasion’ posted that the suspect was “a Muslim immigrant”. Further false information was shared online, amassing millions of views. Similar tensions are rising between the general public and political protest groups which use extreme tactics to communicate their political messages. Lord Walney published a report identifying a rising extremist trend in the UK, suggesting that increasing levels of political intimidation from extremist groups was limiting the essential rights and freedoms of the general public and their political representatives. A proposal under the government’s adviser on political violence has stated that protest groups, such as Just Stop Oil, should be banned under a new category for proscribing “extreme protest groups” who routinely use criminal tactics to try to achieve their aims.
But what the case of Axel Rudakubana has alerted us to is the need to rethink counter-terrorism strategies, as well as remodel counterterrorism initiatives that are already existing. Rudakubana slipped through the nets of multiple agencies, including a counter-terrorism initiative called Prevent – a program which aims to avert radicalisation by tackling the ideological causes of terrorism, intervening early to support people susceptible to radicalisation, enabling people who have already engaged in terrorism to disengage and rehabilitate. The review into the actions of the programme revealed that the attacker had been referred three times to Prevent — when he was 13 and 14 — due to his fixation on violence. Dan Jarvis, the Minister of State for Security, stated that the review had found that there was “sufficient risk for the perpetrator to have been managed through Prevent.” Despite the agency following policy, this scheme should have accepted more help to deal with the Southport killer, an official review found.
This is not the first time counter-terror programmes have failed. The daughter of murdered MP David Amess criticised Home Office failures which had left her father’s murderer unmonitored for years prior to the attack. Ali had also been referred to the Prevent programme, and later through the Channel counter-terrorism programme for more intensive support, however, his case was closed due to “an admin error”, according to Amess’s daughter.
While these oversights certainly appear problematic and although terrorism has resurfaced as a hot-button issue in British politics, comparatively, the UK’s situation is not so extreme. The UK does rank in the top quarter of nations globally most affected by terrorism, however, a number of politically similar countries — such as France, Germany, and the US — are deemed to have higher terror threats. Systems to prevent radicalisation which have failed in the UK have proved equally difficult to develop internationally, as the Washington Institute notes in the case of the US. Clearly, although criticism of British counterterrorism failures is understandable and to be expected, the issues facing the UK are not entirely unique. But as the Rudakubana case has demonstrated, a rigorous reappraisal of preventative counterterrorism strategy is necessary in Britain and beyond.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own, and may not reflect the opinions of The St Andrews Economist.
Image courtesy of Unsplash