Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s think-tank, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, has released a report on tackling “hate” groups with some startling ideas.
For instance, verbal objections to terrorism can be deemed “hate” speech.
But not necessarily the terrorism itself.
Judith Bergman, a lawyer and political analyst, has written about the issue at the Gatestone Institute, where she is a senior fellow.
“Disturbingly, the main concern of Blair’s think-tank appears to be the online verbal ‘hatred’ displayed by citizens in response to terrorist attacks – not the actual physical expression of hatred shown in the mass murders of innocent people by terrorists. Terrorist attacks, it would appear, are now supposedly normal, unavoidable incidents that have become part and parcel of U.K. life,” she wrote.
The think-tank warns, “Current laws are unable to stop groups that spread hate and division, but do not advocate violence.”
It continues: “A steady growth in hate crime has been driven by surges around major events. Often this begins online. Around the 2017 terror attacks in the U.K., hate incidents online increased by almost 1,000 percent, from 4,000 to over 37,500 daily. In the 48-hour period after an event, hate begins to flow offline.”
Bergman explains: “Specifically, the report mentioned as problematic the rise online in ‘hate incidents’ after three Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.K. in 2017 — the Westminster car-ramming and stabbing attack in March by Khalid Masood, who murdered pedestrians and a police officer; the Manchester arena bombing in May, at the end of an Ariana Grande concert, in which Salman Abedi murdered 22 people – the youngest only 8 years old – and injured more than 200 people; and the London Bridge ramming attack in June, in which Rachid Redouane, Khuram Butt and Youssef Zaghba drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge and then proceeded to stab people in nearby Borough Market. Eight people were murdered in that attack.”
She wrote that the report goes further: “Divisive groups – especially increasingly mainstreamed far-right groups – spread hatred with relative impunity because responses to nonviolent extremism remain uncoordinated; hate incidents spike around major events, leaving communities exposed; and perpetrators of religious hate are rarely prosecuted due to gaps in legislation.”
The solution, Blair’s organization suggests?
“Create a new law to designate ‘hate groups.’ This new tier of hate group designation would be the first of its kind in Europe and would help tackle nonviolent extremist groups that demonize specific groups on the basis of their race, religious, gender, nationality or sexuality … Powers to designate would, like proscription powers, fall under the Home Office’s remit and require ministerial sign off.”
A hate group, according to the report, is one that spreads “intolerance and antipathy towards people of a different race, religion, gender or nationality, specifically because of these characteristics; Aligning with extremist ideologies … though not inciting violence; Committing hate crimes or inspiring others to do so via hate speech; Disproportionately blaming specific groups (based on religion, race, gender or nationality) for broader societal issues.”
Warned Bergman, “Unlike proscribed groups that are banned for criminal actions, such as violence or terrorism, the designation of ‘hate group’ would mainly be prosecuting thought-crimes.”
She said that although the report “would still allow designated ‘hate groups’ to ‘meet, support or campaign,’ such a law would mean that the political speech of designated groups would be rendered null and void.”
That would conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence on the convention from the European Court of Human Rights, she said.
“Democratic values, however, appear to be the think-tank’s least concern. The proposed law would make the British government the arbiter of accepted speech, especially political speech. Such an extraordinary and radically authoritarian move would render freedom of speech an illusion in the U.K.. The Home Office would be able to accuse any group it found politically inconvenient of ‘spreading intolerance’ or ‘aligning with extremist ideologies’ – and designate it a ‘hate group,'” she wrote.
