Possible far-right link to German politician murder: reports

A portrait of Walter Luebcke, the administrative chief of the western city of Kassel, is on display next to his coffin during a memorial service in Kassel, western Germany on June 13, 2019. (AFP)
Updated 17 June 2019

Possible far-right link to German politician murder: reports

  • Since his death, hundreds of posts from social media accounts tied to right-wing extremists hailed his murder

BERLIN: German authorities said on Sunday they had arrested a man in connection with the murder of a local politician who was vocally pro-migrant, as media reported the suspect could have far-right links.
Police and prosecutors issued a joint statement that they had taken a 45-year-old man into custody Saturday over the shooting death in early June of prominent local politician Walter Luebcke, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU party.
“The arrest came on the basis of DNA evidence and the suspect appeared this afternoon before an investigating judge in Kassel,” the western city where Luebcke was killed, the authorities said.
They declined to comment on a possible motive, saying they would offer further information to the media about the arrest and the investigation’s progress in the coming days.
However the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily reported that the suspect “comes from the far-right scene,” without providing further details.
The Bild newspaper, citing unnamed investigators, said the suspect “could belong to the right-wing extremist scene.”
Luebcke was shot in the head at close range on the terrace of his home in Kassel, around 160 kilometers (100 miles) northeast of Frankfurt.
Investigators say it is unclear why the 65-year-old was killed, but a possible political motive has not been ruled out, given he had previously received numerous death threats.
Luebcke, the head of the city administration in Kassel, had spoken out in defense of migrants at the height of Europe’s refugee crisis in 2015, drawing the fury of the far right.
Since his death, hundreds of posts from social media accounts tied to right-wing extremists hailed his murder.


Is Prevent program fit for purpose?

Updated 08 December 2019

Is Prevent program fit for purpose?

  • UK counter-radicalization initiative faces criticism ahead of first review

LONDON: On Nov. 26, three days before the London Bridge terrorist attack, Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott told supporters that, if elected, a Labour government would conduct a review of the Prevent program, one of Britain’s most controversial counter-extremism initiatives.

Prevent was created in 2003 to support Britons vulnerable to radicalization, and to stop them from supporting terrorism.

In 2015, the government introduced a statutory duty requiring prisons workers, teachers and doctors to report worries about people considered at risk of turning to radicalism and terror.

Critics say the duty has a chilling effect on free speech and turns public sector workers into informers on their colleagues, creating an atmosphere of distrust.

But some Britons working under the Prevent duty say it has rarely been part of their professional lives.

Dr. Paul Stott, a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank, said in his 11 years of teaching about security and terrorism in five British universities, he never received any communication about Prevent from the university hierarchy. 

“This is a problem,” he told Arab News: “The lack of proper communication about Prevent creates a vacuum of discussion, which has been exploited by activists opposed to the program.”

He said the Labour Party had been successfully lobbied by British Islamic groups to whom Prevent is a “die in a ditch” issue. 

“Organizations such as CAGE and the Muslim Council of Britain contest Prevent as their central activity,” he added.

“It’s painted by these groups as an anti-Muslim program, which is remarkable considering the diversity of the British Muslim population, many of whom are supporters of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy.”

Abbott criticized the Home Office’s decision in August to appoint Lord Carlile to head the government’s Prevent review “because he has spoken in favor of it.” 

But Stott said anyone the government appointed would receive a barrage of criticism as Labour and anti-Prevent NGOs would aim to hit the review before it had started.

He said: “Lord Carlile has been involved in counter-radicalization for decades, and was central to the prosecution of far-right figure Nick Griffin in the 1990s.”

When asked how the UK could improve its counter-terror strategy in light of the London Bridge attack and heightened concern about returning Daesh fighters, Stott referred to Australia’s “Declared area offense” law, which criminalizes entering or remaining in a declared area of a foreign country. 

Syria’s Raqqa province and the Iraqi city of Mosul have both recently been subject to this regulation.

Yasmine Ahmed, director of Rights Watch (UK), said a review of Prevent needs to be the first step in developing a stronger counter-terrorism strategy.

“This has to be a job for the government using a thorough, methodological and evidence-based approach,” she told Arab News. 

“It’s not up to think tanks and NGOs to promote their own preferred counter-terrorism policies.”

Ahmed said there is no evidence to support the theoretical underpinning of Prevent. 

“The broad indicators that the government uses to identify extremism lack an evidential basis, and coupled with the overly vague and broad definition of extremism, gives rise to a huge number of misguided referrals and results in pervasive human rights and societal harms,” she added.

“Prevent is being used as a soft surveillance tool against persons who’ve committed no crimes, the vast majority of whom don’t even end up being onward referred to the Channel program,” she said. Channel is Prevent’s de-radicalization program, led by the police and Muslims who oppose anti-Western rhetoric. 

“The government is collecting information about people, including children, on a secret Prevent database, and people have no way of knowing that they’re on this database and thereby challenging it,” she added.

“Lord Carlile completely lacks independence from the policy of Prevent, as well as the ongoing debate about the legitimacy and effectiveness of the policy.” 

His appointment is currently the subject of a legal challenge from Rights Watch (UK), which described the proposed review as a “whitewash.” 

Lord  Carlile has dismissed concerns about Prevent as arguments made to “liberate the activities of some who are opposed to the very essence of our democratic way of life.”  This, Rights Watch (UK) says, “fundamentally undermines any trust and faith in the process and outcome.”

Ahmed concluded: “It’s critical that this review is genuinely independent; our lives and liberty are at stake.”

Britain’s security policy is fraught with division. Competing think tanks, NGOs and politicians all have their own policy preferences and ideological positions. But after a decade of heightened terrorist-related concerns, and with many British radicals having been referred to the Prevent program but unsuccessfully prevented from carrying out attacks, many agree that now is the time to review the initiative.