The boiling over of far-Right extremism in the form of violent rioting in August has exposed how divided our communities have become
The descent of far-Right mobs on asylum seekers and mosques in August presented a desperately needed opportunity for social cohesion. This flare of extremism, a reaction to false claims that the killer of three children in Southport was an asylum seeker and a Muslim, was a chance for anti-extremists and anti-racists everywhere to come together against a common enemy. But this didn’t really happen, despite the swell of self-congratulation about how communities had united to fight fascism. Nothing reveals the maelstrom of competing extremisms in 2024 like the far-Right threatening Muslims over fake claims on social media, leading to counter protests at which Islamists spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
“It was such a shame,” says Dave Rich, head of policy at the Community Security Trust (CST) . “October 7 and the war since has divided communities and, to a certain extent, it has divided Muslim and Jewish communities. But the riots were something everyone could agree were a terrible thing. Some people from different parts of society did come together but a lot of Jewish people felt not welcome because of that conspiracy theory [that ‘Zionists’ were responsible]. And it’s just another thing that made Jewish people feel ‘you’re not welcome here any more’ and another sign of the impact of the last year.”
That such theories proliferated – and that those espousing them felt safe doing so – is a sign of how quickly tensions between communities and ideological opponents can fall into a kind of arms race of grievance and mistrust. The claim that “Zionists” were somehow behind Tommy Robinson and the other far-Right groups involved in the August disturbances was voiced in mosques in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Blackburn and Leicester (there are reports of preachers in mosques across Britain calling for support for Hamas – a crime under the Terrorism Act 2000). Some radical imams have been filmed calling for the killing of Jews, in sermons delivered since the Hamas attacks.
The tragic irony that factions at anti-fascist rallies were spreading anti-Semitic hate was lost on many, though not on Jewish communities to whom it has become familiar. And around the anniversary of the October 7 attacks, we witnessed another weekend of anti-Israel protests at which some participants openly supported Hamas and Hezbollah. While 17 arrests were made, at times police appeared to look on at hateful behaviour. Amid the “I love Hamas” placards with the Star of David turned into a swastika, one of the most shared videos was of a young man shouting “Freedom fighters! They will finish you all off!” as his smiling family looked on. There was little ambiguity about who he meant by “you”.
Anti-Semitism is especially, though not uniquely, prone to normalisation. The shifting of the plates in that direction after October 7 reinforces the drift towards increasing extremism in the UK, especially among young people. A new survey from The Campaign Against Antisemitism found that 13 per cent of British 18- to 24-year-olds do not believe that Hamas killed around 1,200 Israelis on October 7, compared with 7 per cent of the wider public. Some 16 per cent of young British adults believe that the attacks carried out by Hamas were justified. It’s this kind of data that continues to concern and confound the authorities – and the communities directly affected.
The riots in August emerged in a fever of extremism, presenting a shop window for the problems facing the authorities and on the ground among communities, schools and universities. The great challenge from extremism, aside from the damage it does day to day, is that its increasing prevalence means it becomes something to be managed or lived with, rather than tackled head-on. The riots proved that no community is immune from the threat.
“I see people experiencing alarming levels of Islamophobia,” says Imam Qari Asim, chairman of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board. “In the last few months, the elderly find themselves looking over their shoulders when they go to a mosque for fear of attack. Women are more vigilant, especially if they are on public transport. The riots were traumatic and painful for the whole Muslim community. Lots of mosques have had to get extra security. It’s a visible reminder that the threat still exists.”
In the 11 months after the Hamas attack on Israel, 2,170 anti-Semitic crimes were recorded by the Metropolitan Police, compared to 1,568 Islamophobic hate crimes. This represented more than a fourfold increase in anti-Semitic crime. Earlier this year, the Muslim charity Tell Mama documented 2,010 Islamophobic incidents between 7 October and 7 February, a steep rise from the 600 it recorded for the same period in 2023. Similarly, CST reported 1,978 instances of anti-Jewish hate recorded across the UK in the first six months of this year, the highest January-to-June total ever reported to CST. It is a 105 per cent rise from the first half of 2023.
There are a range of expressions used in pro-Palestine marches, drawing on ideas and language from the far-Left and Islamists that many would regard as extremist – but that are not criminal. Chants calling for a global “intifada” (Arabic for “uprising”) or “from the river to the sea”, for example, are considered genocidal in intent by most Jews but do not currently meet the criminal threshold, and have become normalised.
“Official reactions to extremism depend on where you are and who you are,” suggests Rich. “If you carry an anti-Semitic placard or express support for a proscribed terrorist group on a march in central London then you are more likely to be arrested for that now than you would have been in the immediate weeks after October 7.”
The chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, Gideon Falter is more sceptical: “What has defined this period has been a policy of appeasement. They have policed the marches as if they were benign, but we see precious little activity against the support of terrorist organisations and incitement to racial hatred. In the days after October 7, Islamists and far-Left extremists decided to test the waters to see how far they could go in their support for terrorist organisations and Jew hatred. Once they realised they could go very far they continued to push those borders. What we need to see is a change in attitude among law enforcement.
“October 7 unleashed the wave of anti-Semitism that we’re seeing now. Against the backdrop of mass support for Hamas terrorists, disguised as support for a foreign cause, we’ve seen violence against the police – but also ineffective policing and prosecution. Over the summer we saw an extremely fierce response to far-Right arsonists and thugs but we have yet to see that applied to terrorist sympathisers and racists in our streets or our campuses.”
An incident at Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool last month caused particular consternation. Two men freely held up a sign that read “Zionists control the Labour Party”, along with a Star of David dripping with blood. It’s hard to argue the banner isn’t overtly anti-Semitic, both by use of a classic conspiracy trope and as reference to Jews and the blood libel. But there’s a body of extremist language and ideas that can be expressed in public that either isn’t criminal or could be criminal but isn’t being treated as such. That means it continues to become more permissible and tolerated.
Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner, has defended police against criticism of its approach to the pro-Palestine marches, saying: “At the moment, one side of the debate seems to say that we are guilty of two-tier policing and the other side says that we are oppressive and clamping down on the right to freedom of speech.
“In this context of polarised public debate, I do think sometimes that we’re the first people who are able to be labelled, simultaneously, woke and fascists.”
Lord Walney, the Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption, says: “I’m convinced the police are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances and I think the idea of two-tier policing is unhelpful. But, inevitably, there can be inconsistencies in the way the public order measures are applied and how hate speech is policed.”
Successive governments have sought to define “extremism” as a guide for public institutions and authorities, sometimes as part of the anti-radicalisation Prevent programme, or, as a means to id
But the quest for an enforceable statutory definition of extremism is like the search for Shangri-La. Terrorism already has a broad sweep of criminal thresholds and incitement to violence and racial hatred are existing public order offences. Extremism is always just over the horizon, not least because each attempt to pin it down raises fresh (and valid) questions over freedom of speech and expression that may impinge on debates about issues such as trans rights and climate change.
“The definition of extremism will inevitably and unavoidably be highly problematic to a constitutional lawyer, especially if it is required to perform legal purposes such as banning associations or convicting persons of crimes,” says Prof Clive Walker, professor rmeritus of criminal justice studies at Leeds University. “Current laws already include many provisions which address those who wish to prompt extremism. The law is not powerless at present.”
Despite the latest definition being only five months old, the Government has announced another review of official guidance. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said in August: “For too long governments have failed to address the rise in extremism, both online and on our streets, and we’ve seen the number of young people radicalised online grow. Hateful incitement of all kinds fractures and frays the very fabric of our communities and our democracy.” That this announcement came after the summer riots suggests the timing was a not-coincidental political response to urgent public concern.
There is a sharp contrast between the swift and rigorous application of the law over the far-Right and what can seem a slow or reluctant response to tackling expressions of other forms of racism at street level (and by public figures such as extremist Imams). For those who feel threatened by such rhetoric and intimidation, this is hard to stomach. And then, of course, there is the torrential nature of online extremism.
“What’s happened to X has completely transformed the prevalence and visibility of really extreme ideas and language in public space,” says Rich. “Extremist ideas can come in the form of a very engaging meme on social media that catches your eye. You think it might make sense and you share it with your friends, and you think you and your friends aren’t extremist but the ideas and the language and the messaging can be really extreme and harmful. That’s where the border between extremism and mainstream is really breaking down.”
“We should be very worried about what young people in this country believe,” says Falter. “We’ve found many hold extreme views not just on anti-Semitism or events in the Middle East, but on what they want to see happen here in Britain. I’m concerned this will be ‘generation hate’ and they are being radicalised on a scale never before seen. That threatens the nature of our country and democracy. Young people who get their politics from social media are vastly more likely to be anti-Semitic and extremist.”
This cuts across all forms of extremism. “There has been a concerted effort to link the idea of immigrants and refugees with Muslims in the UK,” says Imam Asim. “Legitimate concerns about immigration and refugees have not been addressed by successive governments and that anger and frustration has been channelled against Muslims.”
The main reasons authorities were able to apply the law so vigorously to the far-Right were that the public order offence threshold was reached time and again, which gave them scope to act decisively. Prosecution on the grounds of ideology – in most cases imbued with racism – is much more difficult unless a legal line is crossed, such as incitement to violence, and those lines at least appear to be applied differently in different contexts.
But, says Rich, “The more we attack the police the less emphasis there is on the organisers of the marches and protests. If someone is walking along shouting “I love October 7” through a megaphone, why aren’t the people next to him telling him to stop or taking the megaphone away from him? Why are they not telling him not to come back? We’ve seen this all year. After October 7, the organisers of the protests could have put out a strong message saying ‘If you support Hamas, do not come – we do not want supporters of terrorists on these marches.’ But they never did.”
