UK treats far-right attacks less harshly than Islamist violence, think tank says

A protester holding a piece of concrete walks towards riot police as clashes erupt in Bristol on Aug. 3, 2024 during a demonstration held in reaction to the fatal stabbings in Southport on July 29. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 11 August 2024
Follow

UK treats far-right attacks less harshly than Islamist violence, think tank says

  • Body raises concerns that far-right acts are often dismissed as ‘mere thuggery’

LONDON: The UK’s approach to tackling extremism has been criticized for being “two-tiered,” with far-right attacks not being treated as seriously as Islamist ones, according to a leading think tank.

The Royal United Services Institute has raised concerns that right-wing violence is often dismissed as “mere thuggery” by politicians, prosecutors, and security services, The Observer reported on Sunday.

In contrast, similar acts by Islamist extremists would likely be swiftly classified as terrorism, the think tank argued in an article published by the newspaper.

The criticism comes in the wake of week-long riots across England and Northern Ireland, during which asylum hotels and mosques were targeted.

The violence has been linked to neo-Nazi and far-right activity, highlighting what RUSI described as “double standards” in how different forms of extremism are addressed.

RUSI, which was established in 1831 by the Duke of Wellington and is often cited as the world’s oldest think tank, said this double standard had allowed far-right extremism to flourish in the UK.

Dr. Jessica White, acting director of RUSI’s terrorism and conflict research group, research fellow Claudia Wallner, and Emily Winterbotham, director of terrorism and conflict studies, co-authored the article.

They wrote: “RUSI’s research suggests that the nature of far-right violence, which is often seen as low impact and disjointed, coupled with institutional bias and racism, means that far-right violence has historically not triggered the same responses from politicians, security services and the media as jihadist violent extremism.

“There exists a clear double standard, or two-tier approach, in how different forms of extremism are addressed, particularly when comparing security and legal responses to far-right and Islamist violent extremism.

“Far-right-motivated violence is often classified as mere ‘thuggery’ or hooliganism, while similar acts motivated by Islamist extremism would likely be swiftly labeled as terrorism. This inconsistency undermines the perceived severity of far-right threats and hinders the political will and the necessary legal precedent to take equivalent action.”

The article criticized British Prime Minister Keir Starmer for his recent description of an attack on a hotel housing asylum-seekers as “far-right thuggery,” The Observer reported.

While acknowledging the ideological roots of the violence, the authors argued that the term “thuggery” minimized the organized, ideological nature of the riots and the groups behind them.

RUSI advocated for treating severe incidents of far-right violence as terrorism. Recognizing severe cases of far-right violence as terrorism would “align with a more equitable legal strategy, ensuring that all forms of extremism are prosecuted with the seriousness they warrant,” it said.

It argued that the recent riots should be viewed as part of a broader “pattern of violence” across Europe that had been largely overlooked by both politicians and the public.

It added: “Similar far-right riots have occurred in Dublin in 2023 and in Chemnitz in Germany in 2018, both in reaction to stabbings that sparked widespread anti-immigrant sentiment, with far-right groups exploiting the incidents to incite violence against migrants and refugees.”

The RUSI’s findings followed recent allegations of bias within the UK’s legal and political systems, particularly in the context of pro-Palestinian protests that have taken place since Oct. 7.


CIA tracked Iranian leaders for months ahead of attacks that began with 3 strikes in 60 seconds

Updated 8 sec ago
Follow

CIA tracked Iranian leaders for months ahead of attacks that began with 3 strikes in 60 seconds

WASHINGTON: Israeli and American authorities spent weeks tracking the movements of senior Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sharing information that allowed the strikes to be carried out in a surprise daylight attack, according to an Israeli military official and a person familiar with the operation.
The eventual barrage of US-Israeli attacks on Iran came so quickly that they were nearly simultaneous — with three strikes in three locations hitting within a single minute — killing Khamenei and some 40 senior figures, including the head of the Revolutionary Guard and the country’s defense minister, the Israeli military official said Sunday.
The official insisted on anonymity to more fully detail the attack, but said that a variety of factors created a golden opportunity to take out much of Iran’s leadership, like weeks of training and monitoring the movements of senior figures as well as intelligence in real-time before the attack began that key targets were gathered together.
Striking by day also gave an additional element of surprise, said the official, who said that so many major, rapid-fire strikes were critical to keep key officials from fleeing after the first strike. The official said Israel closely cooperated with its US counterparts and had used a similar tactic at the beginning of last June’s war — which resulted in the killing of several senior Iranian figures.
The official also noted Khamenei having posted defiant tweets taunting President Donald Trump in the days before the attack.
The details about the strikes came as the conflict entered its second day, with Trump saying in a video message Sunday that he expected it would continue until “all of our objectives are achieved.” He did not spell out what those objectives were.
The Republican president also said the US military and its partners hit hundreds of targets in Iran, including paramilitary Revolutionary Guard facilities, Iranian air defense systems and nine warships, “all in a matter of literally minutes.”
CIA had long tracked top Iranian leaders
Before the attacks, the CIA had for months tracked the movements of senior Iranian leaders, including the country’s supreme leader.
The intelligence was shared with Israeli officials, and the timing of the strikes was adjusted in part because of that information about the Iranian leaders’ location, according to the person, who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The intelligence-sharing between US and Israel reflects the preparation that went into the strikes, which continued for a second day Sunday after Khamenei’s killing threw the future of the Islamic Republic into uncertainty and raised the risk of escalating regional conflict.
Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that tracking the movements of the supreme leader and the heads of other adversarial nations “is obviously one of the highest priorities of our intelligence community.”
The US regularly shares intelligence with allies including Israel. Those partnerships, and the accuracy of the intelligence they yield, is often critical not only to the success of a military operation but also to the public’s support for it.
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the senior Democrat on the committee, told The Associated Press that, historically, “our working relationship with the Mossad and Israel is really strong.” Mossad is the Israeli spy agency.
Warner said he has serious concerns about the justification for the strikes, Trump’s long-term plans for the conflict and the risks that US service members will face. The military announced that three American troops had been killed in the Iran operation.
“No tears will be shed over their leadership being eliminated, but always the question is: OK, what next?” Warner said.
Iran has signaled it’s open to talks with the US
A senior White House official said Iran’s “new potential leadership” has suggested it is open to talks with the United States. That official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations, said Trump has indicated he’s “eventually” willing to talk but that for now the military operation “continues unabated.”
The official did not say who the potential new Iranian leaders are or how they made their alleged willingness to talk known. Separately, Trump told The Atlantic that he planned to speak with Iran’s new leadership.
“They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them,” he said Sunday, declining comment on the timing.
The potential future diplomatic opening comes as the details were emerging about the detailed planning that went into the US-Israeli strikes and some of the targets that were hit in Iran.
US Central Command said that B-2 stealth bombers struck Iran’s ballistic missile facilities with 2,000-pound bombs. That mirrors the approach that the military took in June, when Trump agreed to deploy B-2 bombers to attack three key Iranian nuclear sites.
Trump said during his State of the Union speech last week that Iran had been building ballistic missiles that could reach the US homeland — a justification he repeated again Saturday as he announced that the bombardment of Iran was underway.
Iran has not acknowledged that it is building or seeking to build intercontinental ballistic missiles. The US Defense Intelligence Agency, however, said in an unclassified report last year that Iran could develop a militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile by 2035 “should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.”