August 13, 2024 - 10:00am
The phrase “two-tier” has come to dominate coverage on law and order in modern Britain, usually by those who believe that ethnic and religious minorities tend to be the beneficiaries of preferential treatment when it comes to policing (especially of protests which descend into violent disorder).
There is a point to be made, with West Midlands Police seemingly bowing to the “advice” of unaccountable so-called “community leaders” when deciding on the style of policing in inner-city Birmingham. The likes of Reform UK leader Nigel Farage have argued that this is also reflected in the criminal justice system’s punishment of those involved in public disorder.
But the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) has taken a rather different position, saying that extreme Right-wing violence “is often classified as mere thuggery” by politicians, prosecutors, and the security services. Equivalent acts by Islamist extremists would “swiftly be labelled as terrorism”, argues the think-tank.
RUSI has a point. While Keir Starmer has frequently used the term “far-Right” and has repeatedly referred to those involved in the disorder as “thugs”, he has gone to lengths to downplay the potential ideological motivations behind the riots (for fear of appearing to suggest they are in some way justified). But the former chief of counter-terrorism policing, Neil Basu, has said that some of the violence during the riots had “crossed the line into terrorism”.
The heart of the legal definition of terrorism (in Section 1 of the 2000 Terrorism Act) states that the use or threat of violence (or damage to property) must be based on “the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause”. Other specific actions include “creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public”. It is not unreasonable to suggest that deliberately setting hotels on fire — as was the case in Rotherham and Tamworth — because they reportedly host Channel migrants, could be an act of anti-migrant terrorism.
Attacking minority places of worship is a hallmark of far-Right terror activity — a ferocious targeted assault on a mosque as worshippers fear for their lives inside is endangering the health and safety of a specific section of the local community, as was the case in the Southport riots. While wanting to be seen as adopting a ruthless law-and-order approach to the disorder, Starmer runs the risk of trivialising these potential acts of terrorism as mindless racist thuggery.
Where the RUSI article overstretched to the point of being suspect is positing that politicians are generally more enthusiastic to identify and condemn violent acts of Islamist extremism when compared to its far-Right, neo-Nazi counterpart. This certainly isn’t reflected when considering the far-Right killing of Labour MP Jo Cox and the Islamist murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess. They are not equally etched in Britain’s collective political memory; while there has been a long-standing openness over the ideological motivations behind the former, there has been a certain squeamishness over those which drove the latter, with online anonymity bizarrely dominating the conversation at one point.
What all of this shows is that in an increasingly diverse society where there are depressed levels of trust in public institutions and competing politics of grievance, the job of coming across as fair, balanced, and impartial is as hard as ever for those in positions of political, policing, and security leadership in modern Britain. The Prime Minister must engage with legitimate concerns over perceived two-tier governance — especially the outsourcing of law-and-order responsibilities to unofficial community actors within Muslim communities. But most of all, it is time that he listened to senior voices in the counter-terrorism sphere by acknowledging the ideological and political dimension of the recent violent disorder.
Dr Rakib Ehsan is a researcher specialising in British ethnic minority socio-political attitudes, with a particular focus on the effects of social integration and intergroup relations.
rakibehsan
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAvoiding the big one: encouraging young, moldable people to think they are trans
Yes, that ‘big one’ occurred to me, too, as I read this. The pathologising, and medicalising, of ordinary behaviour traits (eg restlessness) or transitory mental states (eg teenage sexual uncertainties) is a damaging and dangerous modern phenomenon. The danger is amplified by the modern desire for victim status and the compassion of others. (See Mary Harrington’s article in today’s UnHerd.)
Yes…. Trans is so ‘trendy’.
And so desperately damaging particularly to young women many of whom I suspect may be doing it to escape predatory teenage boys as sexual harassment is now endemic in secondary schools in the U.K.
It used to be Tumblr that housed the internet’s real crazy, it seems to have migrated to TikTok – where the damage can be spread even more widely.
Agreed. Tumblr was fine since it was relatively self-contained – if you wanted to get out of the bubble you could. Not only is TikTok incredibly effective at mass dissemination, it is also ubiquitous and almost unavoidable even if you don’t download the app yourself (at least amongst young people). The purchasing of Tumblr by Yahoo and the subsequent mass exodus of users after they raptured the essence of the platform is one of the worst things that could have happened to the internet. TikTok blends lawlessness with ubiquity, and effortlessly channels the internet at its worst into the brains of children.
This is a growing issue and it reaches beyond social media and into primary schools. While ‘informing’ very young children about the existence of sickness of the mind, alongside sickness of the body and the chirpy ways it can be coped with, educators are suggesting to children that they can be depressed, have low mood, and worry about things. I find it slightly sinister but maybe that’s because bare knuckle fighting was a coping strategy when I was at primary school.
ADHD is one of the worst diagnoses ever. It’s completely made up. I’m not saying ADHD is made up, I’m saying the diagnosis criteria are.
If you were so inclined, you could find ADHD in anybody who becomes restless at times, forgets things and has trouble concentrating. Think back when you were children: was this not true for at least a few years of your life? Now imagine how it would be if you were to live in today’s even faster world. Lights and sounds everywhere, your cellphone constantly distracting you with small dopamine hits, and your parents being unresponsive due to staring into a screen 24/7.
What’s next? Easy – just give the children ritalin! Prescibe an amphetamine, known on the streets as speed, only one magnitude below cocaine, during the developmental stage of the brain. So now not only the phone nonsense, but also the medication becomes hardwired. You know how people who start smoking when they are young are having troubles with stopping? It’s the same idea, just that your whole mood is affected, the very perception of your existence and purpose.
Imagine doing something great and feeling nothing; imagine feeling like nothing unless you constantly do something that is perceived as great.
TikTok didn’t start this, Western doctors did, with their chemical-based perception of the human mind. I never thought I would say this, but their complete lack of religious beliefs has destroyed their ability to see things rationally. At least when you believe in the soul, you realize that there is more to the brain than chemicals. Don’t get me started on antidepressants.
Does inflating mental health problems harm and weaken Western society? Does the CCP want to harm and weaken Western society? Do the Chinese own and control TikTok? Join the dots.
I believe the correct spelling is ‘glamorises’.