Is Britain a soft touch for Islamist extremists?
Ever since French officials coined the term “Londonistan” in the 1990s, Britain has been tainted with the reputation of being a soft touch for Islamist extremists. During that decade, a slew of Islamist figures of varying types took refuge in Britain. Many Middle Eastern states accused the government of using them as a weapon against them. This Londonistan branding was reinforced this month in a Sky News Arabia documentary entitled “The Making of Extremism.”
Does this accusation still have any merit, and why does it linger? The soft-touch charge is made across the Middle East, chiefly by Egyptian, Emirati and Saudi authorities, which feel that Britain should do more. A key demand is that the UK proscribe the Muslim Brotherhood, as has happened with other, more hard-line groups. Many, largely on the right in Britain, believe the same.
Former Prime Minister David Cameron succumbed to pressure and in 2014 set up a far-ranging review into the activities of the Brotherhood in the UK. Only a summary of what became known as the Jenkins report entered the public domain.
The Brotherhood was not proscribed, but the review said membership could be a “possible indicator of extremism,” and the group had been a “rite of passage” to violence for some members. It found that “much about the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK remains secretive, including membership, fund raising and educational programs.”
The report determined that none of the extremist attacks in Britain have been organized by the Brotherhood. Many, for example from Egypt and Syria, were originally granted asylum amid fears they would not face a fair trial in their home countries and would be persecuted. While the debate is far from over, the inquiry served notice that the Brotherhood was being closely monitored in the UK.
The threat from Islamist extremism has been taken seriously, more so than far-right terrorism that led to the murder of British MP Jo Cox almost a year ago.
Chris Doyle
That said, there is more than a scintilla of truth to the claim that historically the British authorities have been reluctant to act. For much of the 1990s, the authorities seemed content to leave alleged radical groups and individuals alone as long as they were not an immediate threat to Britain, an approach many saw as short-sighted.
Abu Qatada, often considered to have been Osama Bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe, was detained in 2002, but government efforts were thwarted by the judiciary, so he was not deported until 2013. It was only in 2016 that firebrand Anjem Choudary was sentenced to five and a half years.
Yet whatever some may see as the failings in British policy in the 1990s, this is far from the case today. Britain is not a soft touch, and the Sky News Arabia documentary is sloppy, deeply flawed and out of date, falsely implying that nearly all extremists are linked to or part of the Brotherhood.
British refusal to ban certain groups reflects the need to adhere to the law and human rights standards, but also an understanding that bans rarely work. Groups just resurface under different names. Many who were in the banned group Al-Muhajiroun joined Al-Ghurabaa, which also had to be proscribed.
Britain has suffered far fewer extremist attacks than France, for example. Belgium provides more recruits to Daesh per capita. The attack in Westminster last month was only the second successful Islamist extremist attack since 2005.
It remains the case that on average, you are as likely to die from wasps or bees as from terrorism in the UK. Its success in integrating its Muslim and other communities contrasts with the ghettoization of such communities in France and Belgium.
Part of this success is testament to Britain’s world-class security services, which foiled 13 attacks in four years. But it shows that the threat from Islamist extremism has been taken seriously, more so than far-right terrorism, which led to the murder of British MP Jo Cox almost a year ago.
Most British Muslims say they feel collectively under an intense microscopic gaze as to their behavior, and it is not the few extremists in their midst that are seen as the issue but increasingly Muslims as a whole. Anti-Muslim attacks are on the rise, and Muslims feel isolated and excluded.
British Asian Muslims are over 40 times more likely to be searched at British ports and airports under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, which allows for random questioning for up to nine hours. The government’s Prevent strategy has meant nursery teachers are obliged to report signs of extremism in toddlers. These are just as significant drivers of extremism as ideology.
Britain’s counter-extremism policies have many flaws, but being a soft touch is not one of them. Prime Minister Theresa May is anything but hard-line, and has ensured unprecedented powers for the security services.
Yet in attempting to act tough with a securitized approach, the government has alienated vast swathes of the British Muslim population and has lost their trust, perhaps the most vital ingredient in any strategy to defeat Islamist extremists.
The fallout from this could be far more damaging that the laissez-faire approach of the 1990s if young British Muslims feel excluded and targeted. It highlights that the one consistent factor has been the failure to address the causes, not just the symptoms, of Islamist extremism.
• Chris Doyle is the director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). He has worked with the council since 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic studies at Exeter University. He has organized and accompanied numerous British parliamentary delegations to Arab countries. He tweets @Doylech.
