HEREis a recently published report by a think tank called the Institute for Global Change.  The institute was founded by former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The conclusion of the report can be summarised as follows:

  • Certain individuals such as Thomas Mair and Anders Brevik committed violence and in doing so were motivated by an identifiable world view. 
  • Certain political organisations and groups have a world view that significantly overlaps with the world view of Mair, Brevik and other violent individuals.
  • Whilst the relevant political organisations have not condoned or incited violence, because of (a) and (b) above, the relevant organisations should be subject to a formal designation by the Home Secretary.  This would have civil rather than criminal implications, including the organisations being excluded from appearing in the mainstream media or perhaps any form of media.   

I genuinely think the above is a fair summary of the report, ignoring its verbosity and pseudo -scientific methodology.  You can judge for yourself when reading the report.

The report identifies certain issues and uses a flow chart to identify a continuum ranging from ‘mainstream’ to ‘extreme’ (see for example page 27), with the report advocating for a statutory definition of ‘extremism’ (see page 12).

One of the issues the report analyses is the ‘great replacement’ (see page 34).  This is described as a theory suggesting:

“a conspiracy, that white Europeans are being replaced by Muslims and immigrants from non- Western cultures”.

A poster from the British National Party is shown.  The poster depicts an indigenous British girl and states that she will become a minority in Britain.

The term ‘conspiracy theory’, is used in a pejorative sense; namely a theory based on paranoia that can be deemed wrong a priori.  This section of the report claims that ‘far right groups’ are:

“exploiting loopholes in free speech law” (the implication being that free speech is a privilege provided by the Government).

It should be borne in mind that the indigenous population in Britain and Western Europe, is set to   become a minority in approximately 40-50 years’ time; this has been known for some time and is not conjecture but a statistical projection.  Furthermore, it cannot be disputed that this has been caused by mass immigration which in turn results from the policy decisions of those in power.

The recommendations of the report are sinister.  For example, the current Home Secretary could use the proposed legislation to designate a rival political party as a ‘hate group’.   Consequently, the legislation could be used to prevent that political party from having a party political broadcast, to prevent them from appearing on TV debates and could be used to justify the shut-down of their social media; all of which would cause them considerable electoral disadvantage.

The designation could be challenged via judicial review, but the organisation would need the resources to bring such a challenge and they would only be able to challenge the decision within the statutory framework; they could not challenge the legislation itself.    

The justification for the recommendations of the report, is the alleged link between violence and a certain world view.  However, Tony Blair as Prime Minister was happy to negotiate with the IRA who committed acts of terrorism and violence, provided they renounced violence during the negotiations.  Yet in the case of ‘far right groups’, he advocates suppressing their activity where they do not incite or condone violence, meaning that they have no hope of a fair and peaceful dialogue because of the content of their ideas.

The report does not consider whether suppressing the activity and free speech of ‘far right groups’, could cause more violence, by creating the perception that such groups cannot bring about political change without violence.  Nor does it consider whether policy changes, such as reducing or stopping immigration, would make ‘far right’ inspired terrorism less likely.

This sinister report demonstrates the need for being precise and circumspect when setting the limits to free speech, see HERE