On Friday, 26th June, the world was shocked by a series of terrorist attacks that killed over 60 people across three different continents within the space of three hours. In Tunisia, a gunman opened fire on a group of unsuspecting holidaymakers, killing over 24 Britons. In France, a lorry driver decapitated his boss and attempted to cause an explosion at an aerosol factory. And in Kuwait, a Saudi born Islamist extremist blew himself up inside a Shia mosque. Islamic State (IS) has claimed responsibility for the attacks in both Tunisia, and Kuwait, and it is clear that the attacker in France was, at the very least, motivated by IS. As the trauma of the attacks starts to fade, people are wondering: is Britain next?
Just under a week ago, senior IS spokesperson Abu Muhammad al-Adnani urged his followers to precipitate a “calamity for the infidels” throughout the holy month of Ramadan. There is no shortage of adherents to al-Adnani’s hateful message—as many as 700 Britons may have left to fight for IS since the inception of the Caliphate in 2014. It is within this context that Prime Minister David Cameron has acknowledged that “we are a target” of Islamist extremism. In the run up to the 10 year anniversary of the London 7/7 bombings, Cameron has pledged a “full spectrum” response incorporating the Home Secretary Teresa May's controversial counter extremism strategy. But aside from sending 16 Metropolitan police detectives, forensic science specialists and family liaison officers to Tunisia, it is unclear what is going to change about Britain’s counter-extremism response.
In the run up to the ten year anniversary of the London 7/7 bombings, Cameron has pledged a “full spectrum” response to the threat of Islamist extremism. But aside from sending 16 Metropolitan police detectives, forensic science specialists and family liaison officers to Tunisia, it is unclear what is going to change about Britain’s counter-extremism response.
Cameron did well to focus on our ideological conflict with Islamist extremism—“We have to deal with this appalling radical narrative that’s taking over the minds of young people in our country,” he said yesterday—and although he plans to enforce restrictions on non-violent Islamist organisations from gaining a platform to espouse hateful views, or condone the actions of IS, there are four main areas where Britain’s response to Islamist extremism ought to be improved.
Cameron should focus firstly on diverting resources toward civil society initiatives that provide a strong identity for all British individuals to adhere to. Discussing British Values such as human rights, the rule of law, tolerance, pluralism and democracy in school curricula is a great way to practically do this. When individuals feel a strong connection to the country within which they reside, naturally, they will be less akin to blowing it up.
Furthermore, it will be important to integrate members from within Muslim communities into the forefront of any “identity”-based initiatives in order to reconcile the two constituent elements of the British-Muslim identity, and undermine the feelings of isolation and disconnectedness that typically breed a susceptibility to extremist views. Though, surely any Muslim organisations that are partnered with in this work must fully commit to the British Values the Government seeks to promote—large umbrella groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain have thus far failed to do this.
Identity initiatives aside, the Prime Minister should focus on tackling the causes of radicalisation, and, amongst other things, implement a coordinated online and offline strategy that could be used to mitigate the attraction of the utopian Islamist narrative. This narrative is often intertwined with the Islamist ideology and argues, at its broadest, that the West is at war with Islam and therefore we need a caliphate, governed by sharia, for the whole ummah, to wage jihad to defend the oppressed from the oppressors. These ideological elements have become household terms over the last two decades and the narrative popularised by countless non-violent Islamist groups. It is now taking hold online and remains attractive to many young Muslims in Britain.
Responding involves a combination of both negative and positive measures. On the negative side, we can see that much is already being done. If we are to recall repeated claims from the Home Secretary Theresa May, who reminds us at every opportunity that her team has taken down 90,000 pieces of extremist content. This is largely arbitrary as we don’t have a sense of how much of it is replaced or how much there is at any one time, and is at best a disruptive measure. In terms of positive measures, Cameron should promote, encourage, and support activists to flood the online space and implement counter-narratives that can compete with the poisonous Islamist ideology.
If Cameron really is to go “full spectrum” against Islamist extremism, he will need the very broadest spectrum of support. This means he will need to convince naysayers in different camps that what he is planning is in Britain’s best interests. He will need to win over the Theresa Mays who plug for more legislation as much as he will need to convince the Baroness Warsis that Muslims are being targeted by his new strategy. He will need buy-in from all government departments if he is to produce a comprehensive and coherent response. He need not unify a coalition these days, but he does need to unify his government and the country to challenge this social ill and this existential threat.
