Having been widely shared on social media, the Breitbart story not only claimed that local residents were shocked by the size of the mega mosque, but so too was it alleged that some had voiced concerns about the increased risk of terrorism, that worshippers would try and enforce an alcohol ban in the surrounding area, and that there would be a conflict with those frequenting Soho, London’s gay quarter.

How the Radical Right Co-Opted Religion

READ MORE

While some of those lodging complaints about the mosque will no doubt have had legitimate claims, the Breitbart article clearly acted as a catalyst for the radical right in Britain to jump on the opposition bandwagon. By using the term “mega-mosque,’ Breitbart reverted a tried and tested trope that has been successfully deployed in other parts of the country by various radical-right groups to derail plans for other new mosques. While this affords an opportunity to consider how the radical right have focused on size when it comes to opposing mosques, so too does it give us a timely insight into how the radical right’s campaigns of Islamophobia might change in the “new normal” of a post-COVID-19 world.

The “Old Normal”

Standing on the corner of Shaftesbury Avenue and Piccadilly Circus, the Trocadero was built in 1896. Home to a restaurant until 1965, the building remained largely redundant until the early 1980s, when it was renovated and relaunched as an indoor entertainment complex, housing the UK’s first IMAX cinema and various other attractions, including the gaming arcade Segaworld. With every new initiative, however, came failure, and the building eventually became in 2006. A year beforehand, Criterion Capital had purchased it along with another nearby building. Since then, the Trocadero has undergone significant changes: Today, for example, it houses a 740-bedroom .

The man behind Criterion Capital is Asif Aziz. He also established the , an education charity for British Muslims that has its headquarters near Piccadilly Circus. The foundation was behind the plans submitted to the local authority to request permission to convert the basement and part of the ground floor into a prayer space and community center. With the intention of serving Muslims who live and work in the area, the that it was likely that the prayer space would only attract near-capacity attendance for Friday prayers; on all other days, the plans claimed that no more than 100 worshippers would be in attendance. When the public consultation closed, nearly had been filed about the plans. While the majority were supportive, a flood of comments opposing the mosque appeared once the mega mosque story was “broken” by Breitbart.

Among these were a number of tropes that the radical right have been deploying about Muslims and the religion of Islam for some time: from changing the “character” of the area to the mosque being a potential “Islamist hotspot,” from Islam not being welcome in a “secular” society to the mosque being evidence of the further “Islamification” of Britain. Of course, the size of the mosque was also routinely cited as a problem.

Under the “old normal,” the radical right have been about the size of mosques for almost two decades. As the simple yet effective narrative goes, the bigger the mosque the bigger the threat posed. This was used to good effect in Dudley, a town on the outskirts of Birmingham in the West Midlands. While much was made of the size of the prayer hall, it was the height of the adjoining the “super-mosque” that garnered the most opposition.

Alleged to be taller than the steeple of the town’s oldest church, opponents claimed Muslims were doing so in order to claim the supremacy of Islam over Christianity. Prompting more than a decade of radical-right protests, including some of the largest by the anti-Islam street protest movement, English Defence League, the plans for the mosque were in 2018.

Three years prior, a similar outcome met plans to build a 9,000-capacity “mega mosque” in Stratford, East London. There, more than a quarter of a million people signed a petition opposing the mosque following radical-right groups campaigns alleging that those behind the mosque had with the 7/7 suicide bombers.

The “New Normal”

In the “new normal,” while various radical-right groups have jumped on the anti-mosque bandwagon, it has been by former anti-Islam political party and vigilante group, , that has led the way, at the time of writing acquiring near 125,002 signatures on its to block the plans. Most interesting, however, are the reasons Britain First cites for opposing the new mosque.

Alongside all of the old-normal reasons for doing so, it is the new attribution to the size of the mosque that is most insightful. As it states: “Local people have strongly objected to the application on the basis that the area was already heavily overcrowded even before the coronavirus pandemic introduced the need for social distancing – and that adding another 1,000 people, congregating in and around the mega mosque during prayer times would cause serious [problems].” As such, the new mosque should be opposed because it will increase the risk of spreading COVID-19 and thereby poses a threat to the health of local residents.

While much has been made about the new normal that will ensue in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, what the Trocadero mosque shows is that some elements of the old normal will not only survive but will continue to thrive. As was the case in the old normal, mosques are problematic, the size even more so. Irrespective of any pandemic, little would appear to have changed.

What does seem to have changed in the new normal, however, is how size is problematized. While the simple yet effective narrative technique used to be “the bigger the mosque, the bigger the threat posed” could, in the wake of 9/11,  always be understood as being either cultural or violent. As regards the former, this typically focused on the “takeover” of Britain, its values, way of life and so on. For the latter, this typically focused on terrorism and radicalization. Post-COVID-19, if Britain First is anything to go by, a more insidious dimension to that threat might now emerge. As the petition infers, the threat now posed by the mosque is also a biological one.

Irrespective of whether such claims are true, one can see how effective and immediate this kind of claim could be among local people who are already fearful of the effects and impact of an invisible virus. Reshaping the narrative to “the bigger the mosque, the bigger the biological threat posed” may have the potential to be an even more effective means of mobilizing and opposing in the new normal than it was before. If Britain First is successful, expect others within the radical right to rapidly follow this new narrative technique in anti-mosque campaigns and other forms of Islamophobic mobilization throughout the UK.

*[The  is a partner institution of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post London’s “Mega Mosque:” Islamophobia in the COVID-19 “New Normal” appeared first on 51�Թ�.

While identification and adherence to Christianity — including church attendance — would appear to be in something of terminal decline, the effective co-option of Christian ideas and emblems among the radical right is continuing unabated. This is not only happening in Britain, however. In various locations across Europe, the need to “” or even “take back” Christian Europe has been as much a mainstay of right-wing populist rhetoric as it has been among those further along the right-wing spectrum. Turn back the clock a few decades in the United States, and it is easy to recall how the Ku Klux Klan used a to signify intimidation and threaten violence.

Developing Themes

It is far from coincidence that in recent years, has adopted the tactic of carrying large white crosses during demonstrations in densely populated Muslim areas. Developing a theme, the group has also undertaken in armored vehicles in similarly populated areas while also organizing , where imams and worshippers are confronted by activists insisting they accept copies of British Army-issue Bibles.

What is interesting about Britain First is that its founder, , was a former evangelical Protestant minister who had previously been a vociferous campaigner against abortion. In its early years, at least, a number of the group’s hierarchy also believed the apocalyptic endgame was near, whereby salvation could only be achieved through an ensuing .

More recently, Paul Golding, Britain First’s leader, has made a direct correlation between what the group is currently doing and what Jesus is alleged to have done two millennia ago. As he stated in an interview with : “Jesus Christ did use physical violence according to the Gospels in the temple in Jerusalem, and he met a very violent end. He preached love and forgiveness etc, [sic] but he also said he didn’t come to bring peace; he came to bring division and a sword, he came to bring fire upon the world to sort the world out.”

Over the past decade and a half, the co-option of Christianity by the radical right has been an integral aspect of its virulent Islamophobia. As a means of demarcating “us” from “them,” the (BNP) did this by stressing the view that, historically, Britain had always been a Christian country. Accordingly, the religion of Islam and Muslims themselves were unlike who “we” — the majority culture — have always been. Because of this — at least as the BNP’s rationale suggested — Islam and Muslims would always be incompatible with “our” culture, “our” way of life, “our” values and so on.

While it is easy to dismiss such claims, my own research has shown that such rhetoric can be extremely effective. Investigating the radical right’s opposition to the building of a “” in Dudley — the preferred descriptor of the BNP and English Defence League (EDL) at the time — not only did the need to “defend” the town’s Christian heritage strike a chord among local people but so too did a number of evangelical churches in the area give voice to the radical right’s campaigning. In trying to counter the successful inroads the radical right were making in the town, a local interfaith group made the following public statement: “The EDL are also known for using faith to promote their agenda, with a clear anti-Muslim stance, and when pressed bring the church and other faiths into the debate to justify their position … there will no doubt be an attempt to use faith, particularly the Christian faith to justify extremist views and violence”

Crude and Divisive

The radical right has not gone unchallenged. Just a few years back, 14 of Britain’s largest Christian churches unequivocally condemned the co-option of Christianity and its emblems. Describing the doing so as provocative, self-serving and far removed from teachings of the Christian faith, Reverend Dr. Damian Howard, of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, that while “it’s extremely painful for any Christian when the name of Jesus Christ is hijacked to justify hatred and to spread fear and mistrust,” the radical right’s “crude and divisive tactics [ran] contrary to the true spirit of Christian love.”

Whether the rapid decline in identification and adherence to Christianity in Britain will have any impact on the radical right’s co-option of associated ideas and emblems remains to be seen. However, one might take heed of the findings from research published in the last year. Focusing on Europe more broadly, the research found that those most likely to support the aggressive use of Christianity by the radical right were also disproportionately irreligious. Contrary to the view propagated by the radical right, the same research also showed that church attendance was one of the strongest statistical predictors for voting against the radical right.

Constructing a mythic past is a critical aspect of fascist and radical-right ideologies. In line with , today’s co-option of Christianity fulfils the cult of tradition, one where Christianity and Christian values were the norm, and where all in the world was good. But while that tradition might contemporarily be deployed to the Other, the religion of Islam and Muslim communities — and thereby deemed acceptable by some — that same tradition can be as easily deployed to push back against the rights afforded women and those who identify as LGBTQ. The same is true of reproductive rights and various other liberal and civil rights.

While the bells may have tolled for Christianity in today’s Britain, it is highly unlikely that the radical right will be jettisoning its co-option in the foreseeable future. For the time being, Christianity fulfils a vital ideological function quite irrespective of whether people fill the pews or not.

*[The  is a partner institution of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How the Radical Right Co-Opted Religion appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The lack of clarity about what constitutes hate speech is no more apparent than when we compare it to hate crime. The UK’s College of Policing as any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by hostility or prejudice. With official data on hate crime having been published annually in the UK since 2012, five monitored strands are currently recognizable: disability, race, religion, sexual orientation and being transgender.

As regards hate speech, there is little in the way of comparison when it comes to official responses or data. With no agreed definition, hate speech is loosely conceived as an expression of hatred toward another person or group of people using various means via speech, writing or other means of communication. There are no actual laws against hate speech either. Instead, legal protection is afforded in the UK under a number of different statutes that make it an offence to variously threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior that causes, or is likely to cause, another person , alarm or distress; to incite ; to incite hatred on the grounds of ; and — somewhat bizarrely — use language that .

A Fine Balance

Further muddying the waters is the need to balance the protection of those targeted by hate speech with the need to protect free speech. Whilst not as strong as First Amendment protections in the United States, under Article 10 of the UK’s Human Rights Act, the right to free expression is safeguarded and includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without state interference. While so, and contrary to the US case, the right to free expression is not absolute and can be limited when necessary to protect the rights of others, a key example here being when language is being to incite violence against certain groups. All limitations, however, must be both necessary and proportionate, balancing the rights of the offender against the harms against the victim.

In the UK context, the issue of hate speech is further obscured by the issue of language that is deemed to offend — something that seems to crop up every now and again. There are no laws against offence, and rightly so, because as the independent human rights group , criminalizing even the most unpalatable, illiberal and offensive speech should be approached with grave caution. As with free speech, there is no justification for criminalizing language, or behaviors, just because you do not like what someone else is saying. In spite of this, hate speech is regularly conflated with offence and being offended, both of which are quite different and wholly subjective. Finding something unpleasant or offensive is then quite different from language and speech that seeks to incite violence and criminality.

Given the lack of policy and legislative guidance, the need to balance the right to free speech and the routine conflation of hate speech with mere offence, hate speech becomes extremely difficult to understand, identify and duly respond to. Consequently, claims to what is and what is not hate speech are more likely to be premised by biased and partial value judgments that reflect our political and personal preferences including whom we like and, maybe even more importantly, whom we dislike.

Unlike the widely-reported recent that was unequivocally understood to be, and condemned as, a hate crime, it would be extremely rare to find the words or speech of an individual being unequivocally understood and denounced as hate speech. Until an official definition is arrived at, hate speech remains wholly subjective.

This is concerning because we know that some key influencers and activists within the UK radical right use this lack of clarity to exploit their right to free speech. This is evident in two ways: first, the right to free speech being exploited with impunity; and second, the right to free speech being hypocritical.

Regarding the former, Alex Oaten notes how the , better known as Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, has been driven by a white working-class victimhood narrative based on denials of freedom of speech.  Recently jailed for breaching very clear and specific laws about reporting restrictions that had been put in place about ongoing legal proceedings, the campaign for his release was something quite different. Part of a well-established and highly effective narrative of radical-right politics, Yaxley-Lennon was presented as a victim of a repressive state who had been imprisoned for merely telling the “truth” about “Muslim paedophiles.”

Contradiction and Hypocrisy

Accordingly, Yaxley-Lennon was not only depicted as someone who was being victimized for simply exercising his right to free speech, but so too was he depicted as someone who was being denied his right to free speech on the basis that it might “offend” Muslims.

Likewise, the leaders of Britain First have also used freedom of speech to defend their actions. When Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding were and removed from Twitter last year — and despite the prosecutor clearly stating that “these defendants were not merely exercising their right to free speech but were instead aiming religiously aggravated abuse at innocent members of the public” — their supporters disagreed. For them and their followers, Fransen and Golding were the victims of a criminal justice system that sought to curtail their right to free speech.

There is much contradiction and hypocrisy among the UK radical right about the use of freedom of speech defenses. Take, for instance, Farage’s response to Brand’s comments. Whilst he called for police action on the basis that Brand was inciting violence, he showed far less concern when in 2016, 40,000 individuals claiming that the now infamous UKIP “Breaking Point” poster he and Leave.EU launched incited racial and religious hatred. Farage’s hypocrisy was further called out in a , presenter of Heresy: “Nigel! I’m genuinely disappointed; we don’t agree on everything, but I would totally have had you down as a free speech man.”

The same was evident in a recent explanation about the actions of Yaxley-Lennon. Having been filmed before a Nations League match in Portugal, it was claimed the incident was prompted by the , “you don’t represent me.” If correct, it would seem the radical right’s newfound is as exclusivist as the rest of the platform that such actors stand for.

Finally, then, while concerns have recently been aired about the voracity and , the real challenge lies in how we understand hate speech in a balanced and objective way. This is because hate speech is inherently subjective and rarely attracts consensual agreement, especially in Britain’s divisive post-Brexit environment.

Given this, maybe the attentions of practitioners and activists would be better placed in trying to highlight individuals and groups — including within radical right circles — who seek to exploit the complexities and incoherencies that exist among the hate speech/free speech/offence triumvirate. Without a doubt, this would seem to be easier and would not require additional legislation nor, importantly, further censure.

*[This article was developed from a paper at the Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation in London on June 25, 2019.

The  is a partner institution of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post When Free Speech Becomes Hate Speech appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In April, Facebook announced its to “ban” 12 UK-based individuals and organizations linked to the radical right. Arguing that each sought to “spread hate,” Facebook explained that the decision was made on the basis that all were “individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook.” The measure was, however, far from a “ban.” Less sensationally, the social media provider was merely stating that those who spread hate were no longer welcome to do so via its platforms — simple.

In spite of what seemed to be quite a clear and unequivocal justification, much has been made of the decision since. This largely focused on four issues. First, whether the ban went against the right to free speech. Second, whether banning these individuals and organizations had the potential to make them victims. Third, whether the ban would act as a deterrent to others from empathizing or supporting those affected, and, finally, whether the decision was ultimately right or wrong.

The 12 by Facebook’s decision include the British National Party and its ex-leader Nick Griffin; Britain First, its leader Paul Golding and former deputy leader Jayda Fransen; the English Defence League (EDL) and its founding member Paul Ray; Knights Templar International and its promoter Jim Dowson; National Front and its leader Tony Martin; and Jack Renshaw, a neo-Nazi who plotted to murder a Labour Party MP. While some of these have — like others — claimed they have been banned, the reality is quite different.

Unlike National Action, which was — to the extent that it is now a criminal offence to be a member of the group — all of those affected remain free to find other online platforms from which to espouse the exact same messages they have been restricted from doing so via Facebook. In this way, Facebook is merely cutting off its oxygen supply to those who wish to espouse hate — nothing to do with free speech.

While so, the contradiction that is former EDL leader Tommy Robinson will likely be the template each will seek to follow. By contradiction I mean the fact that despite Robinson variously protesting about being gagged and having his free speech curtailed, he continues to have a quite disproportionate public voice that shows no tangible evidence whatsoever of it being curtailed. Nonetheless, like Robinson, those affected by Facebook’s decision will claim to be “victims.”

Having said that, are ever present tropes in the public discourses associated with all of those affected: from being victims of the mainstream media to the political elites, from the liberal left to minority communities, there will be little new being offered in this respect. Just because Robinson, Fransen, Griffin et al., say they are victims, it does not necessarily mean that they are right. That we will no doubt continue to hear them making such claims will no doubt disprove the suggestion they have been gagged, so let’s call them out on this.

As regards to the claims that Facebook’s decision will achieve little in from empathizing or supporting those affected is, in my opinion at least, missing the point. That is because Facebook was attempting to achieve neither of these outcomes. Despite claims to the contrary, however, Facebook has been historically used by many among the radical right to . Nonetheless, as Facebook unequivocally stated, its action now is about acknowledging that hateful messages do not align with mainstream societal thinking and thereby should not be afforded legitimacy or validation through mainstream (social) media providers. As with the issue of free speech previously, Facebook is far from denying anyone the right to hold, empathize with or support any individual, organization or ideology. They are merely saying that such views and ideas cannot be attributed either directly or indirectly to them.

Finally, whether Facebook’s decision is right or wrong is a wholly subjective matter. While so, it is not without precedent among mainstream media outlets. This came to me while doing a live interview with BBC’s 5 Live last week on this very issue. Had I begun to espouse overt racist or anti-Semitic views during the interview, the BBC would have — rightly, I hasten to add — cut me off. The same too had I begun swearing or using abusive or insulting language about certain minority groups. As a consequence of this, it would be highly unlikely for me to be invited to participate in any future live broadcasts.

In the same way that there is an expectation for me to conduct myself in a certain way while appearing on the BBC — as indeed I would all other mainstream media outlets also — the same can be said to be true of social media providers also. Why should social media provide an arena where hate can be routinely shared and disseminated when other media arenas are not? Abusing the platform afforded to them by Facebook and others, Britain’s Dirty Dozen now face the consequences others would in other comparable settings. Facebook’s decision, therefore, is far from exceptional and clearly not without precedent.

That I have previously aired my concerns about how in recent years the mainstream media has afforded to those on the radical right, Facebook’s decision — and in particular the message it conveys — has to be welcomed. Stating that hateful and bigoted messages do not have a place and will not be afforded a mainstream platform is not a bad thing. Likewise, that the same is occurring at a time when divisions and antagonisms between us are on the rise. Far from being about the right to free speech — I reiterate, no one is being disallowed to say exactly what they want — the decision is instead about what is the right action by a responsible media provider.

*[The  is a partner institution of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post In Defense of Facebook’s “Ban” of the Far Right’s Dirty Dozen appeared first on 51�Թ�.