The Commission for Countering Extremism is a British government agency created under Prime Minister Theresa May in response to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. On 24th February 2021 they published a legal review that examines whether existing legislation adequately deals with ‘hateful extremism’. The review provides recommendations to government for a new legislative framework to address a perceived gap that allows ‘hateful extremism’ to flourish.
Images describing the Commission for Countering Extremism and introducing the legal review published in February 2021:
The review covers ‘hateful extremism’ in many forms, including by Islamists, by the so-called ‘far right’, and by Incels. Our articles focus mainly on the report in relation to White people.
‘Hateful extremism’ identified in the report is, at times, no more than people standing up for the human rights of Whites. Curtailing the right of people to speak freely on this subject, which will happen if the recommendations of the report are adopted by government, has major implications for White people.
The report is also significant in that it illuminates, with a clarity not seen before, how the persecution of Whites is ignored and even reframed as aggression by Whites.
This report gives us the chance to expose exactly what is happening in the UK. If we are unsuccessful in doing that we risk the most significant change in our ability to protect White folk we have ever seen.
This is the first of several articles. We explore what the report says about ‘hateful extremism’; what this means for the White positive sphere; and our deep felt concerns. Our second article will look at how this report facilitates an increase in antiwhite hate.
A pdf of the Operating with Impunity Hateful extremism: The need for a legal framework review in full is available at the end of this page together with links to our other articles in this series.
“A Gap in the Legislation“
The Commission for Countering Extremism’s review contends that there is a significant gap in legislation which allows ‘hateful extremism’ to continue unchecked.
The authors state that this ‘hateful extremism’ is an activity in it’s own right, different from either hate crime or terrorism; that it operates outside the scope of existing hate and terrorism laws; and that it is a growing threat to society which damages social cohesion and creates an environment conducive to hate crime, terrorism and other violence. The report recommends a new legal framework be created to tackle it.
Below are two extracts from the UK Government counter-extremism webpage profiling the report:
“Damaging Social Cohesion and Threatening Our Democracy”
A new legal framework is required, the report states, because ‘hateful extremism’ seeks to damage social cohesion and threaten our democracy.
Extract from the recommendations section of the report:
No consideration is given as to whether pluralism itself might damage social cohesion, or whether cohesion is something that can be legislated for. In addition we propose that this report, in itself, damages cohesion as we explain in our second article on this review.
Definitions of pluralism and social cohesion which highlight the tension between them
“Defining Hateful Extremism“
The definition of ‘hateful extremism’ used in the report is posted below. This omits a significant component, namely why does ‘hateful extremism’ fall outside existing hate and terrorism laws?
The definition of “hateful extremism” given in the report is a follows:
The reason this ‘extremism’ falls outside current laws, is that it is characterised by the absence of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Neither does it meet the terrorism threshold.
In the report’s own words “In contrast, hateful extremism is a distinct activity in its own right outside of terrorism and hate crime and requires its own legislation to capture and prevent it.”
Below are two extracts from Chapter 5. of the Review – Legal Gaps Exploited by Hateful Extremists, which describe ‘hateful extremism’ and how it falls outside current legislation:
Further extracts from the same chapter giving examples of ‘hateful extremism’:
“A Catch-All for Ideas and Beliefs We Don’t Approve Of”
Reading through the report it’s not difficult to conclude that, in the case of the White positive sphere, the recommendations are a way of outlawing ideas and beliefs the Commission for Counter Extremism disagrees with.
Some examples illustrating what we mean:
1/ The extract posted below shows how the report identifies that, at times, finding evidence that offences are ‘threatening’ and requiring proof of intent can be a challenge, and that this lack of evidence limits the ability of the authorities to tackle ‘hateful extremism’.
Extract from Chapter 4. The Operational Challenges Facing Law Enforcement Agencies and Regulatory Bodies:
The issue this raises is clear. If evidence that the words or actions are threatening cannot be found, this may be because the words or actions were not threatening in the first place. If intent cannot be proved, this may be because no such intent exists.
2/ In Chapter 3. Failure of Our Laws to Keep Up: The Modern-Day Threat of Hateful Extremism, the report portrays those engaged in ‘hateful extremism’ as using ‘free speech and human rights’ arguments duplicitously. Their message is clear – it cannot be free speech because we do not like the message; this cannot be about human rights because it does not conform with our opinions.
An extract from Chapter 3. The Failure of Our Laws to Keep Up: The Modern-Day Threat of Hateful Extremism:
The same chapter provides an example. Patriotic Alternative’s actions are described as being contextualised ‘as an exercise in freedom of speech’. Rather than allow that freedom of speech is indeed the context of Patriotic Alternative’s actions, it is presented as a clever way for the organisations to circumnavigate the law.
Chapter 3 The Failure of Our Laws to Keep Up: The Modern-Day Threat of Hateful Extremism:
The report also notes that Patriotic Alternative “do not directly threaten
individuals or groups with protected characteristics or explicitly encourage violence
or terrorist acts”. Despite this the report goes on to define Patriotic Alternative’s actions as ‘hateful extremism’. This is a measure of how society has redefined protecting White people from abuse, in all its forms, as a ‘racial supremacist ideology’. We explore this further in our second article.
3/ The same narrative occurs again in Chapter 4. The Operational Challenges Facing Law Enforcement Agencies and Regulatory Bodies.
Extract from Chapter 4 The Operational Challenges Facing Law Enforcement Agencies and Regulatory Bodies:
The National Police Chiefs Council “informed us that they are becoming increasingly aware that some extremist actors are conscious of legal precedents and legislation, helping them remain on the right side of the line”. Another clear message from the report: we will move the line until we can make these ‘extremists’ stop.
As current laws are ineffective against these groups we can conclude they are:
- Not using threatening words or behaviour
- Not using abusive words or behaviour
- Not using insulting words or behaviour
- Not involved in terrorist activities
So the issue is with their ideology, their belief’s. The subtext suggested being their ideologies and beliefs differ from ours, so must be wrong.
This article has explored the ethos of the report, and highlighted the significant impact of freedom of speech which will occur if the recommendations are converted into UK Law. In our next article we look at an equally concerning element of the report. That is defines ‘hateful extremism’ occurring against every race except Whites, despite White people being at the forefront of hate and defamation.
Other article in this series:
Pdf of the review:
Published 27 February 2021