Can the UK Combat ‘Extreme Misogyny’ Like Terrorism? A Flawed Approach

[Social Media]

 

The UK government's recent announcement to tackle extreme misogyny as part of its anti-extremism strategy has sparked intense debate. Critics argue that anti-extremism policies have historically been ineffective, and adding misogyny into the mix is unlikely to bring about significant change. The recent riots in the UK, triggered by a knife attack in Southport, underscored the complex ways in which misogyny intersects with far-right ideology.

 

One prominent figure who fueled misinformation during the unrest was Andrew Tate, a self-proclaimed misogynist influencer. In the aftermath of the attack, Tate falsely claimed that the perpetrator was “an illegal immigrant arrived on a boat one month ago,” highlighting the dangerous ways in which extremist views spread across different online communities. 

 

Tate’s influence illustrates a broader trend: individuals known for peddling one form of outrage, such as misogyny, often branch out into other forms of extremism to capture new audiences. This cross-pollination of ideas, especially during major events that draw public attention, has changed how extremist ideologies are disseminated online. The way hard-right groups organize today is vastly different from just seven years ago, the last time the UK government reviewed its counter-extremism strategy. In response to these evolving threats, the current government has commissioned a rapid policy review to assess not only the rise of Islamist and hard-right ideologies but also new trends, including extreme misogyny.

 

While the announcement by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper grabbed headlines, the practical implications of defining misogyny as extremism remain murky. Key questions linger: would expressing misogynist views be grounds for referral to Channel, the UK’s secretive deradicalisation program? Would police be alerted if misogynistic views were expressed, or would intervention only occur when violent intent was evident? This uncertainty is compounded by the fact that misogyny is alarmingly widespread.

 

Determining when misogyny crosses into extremism poses a significant challenge. Would a police officer sharing inappropriate photos of a woman or making derogatory remarks about female colleagues be deemed an extremist? Or what about a judge whose lenient sentencing reflects a bias toward the male perpetrator in a sexual assault case?

 

Home Office Minister Jess Phillips attempted to address concerns about free speech, suggesting that the same standards used to identify far-right extremism or Islamist radicalism would apply to extreme misogyny. “You just use the exact same test you would with far-right extremism and Islamism, wouldn’t you? The same test would have to apply,” Phillips stated on LBC. However, the history of UK counter-extremism policy reveals a lack of a clear and consistent test. The question of what constitutes an extreme idea and when state intervention is warranted has long been contentious.

 

The Preventing Violent Extremism scheme, launched in 2007 in the wake of the 2005 London bombings, initially focused on preventing acts of violence by countering harmful ideologies. However, subsequent reviews shifted the emphasis from just violent extremism to combating all forms of extremism. Unlike some countries that view disengagement from violence as sufficient, the UK’s Prevent strategy aims for a complete rejection of extremist ideas. The 2015 relaunch further solidified the focus on extreme ideas rather than just the risk of violence.

 

Former Prime Minister David Cameron encapsulated this shift, stating in 2015, “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.”

 

This approach raises fundamental questions about the role of government in regulating ideas, particularly when those ideas do not necessarily break the law. Over the years, the consensus has leaned toward the belief that the state should indeed intervene, moving beyond prohibiting hate speech and incitement to violence to identifying and curtailing unacceptable ideologies.

 

Most people would agree that a society in which anti-egalitarian or bigoted views are prevalent is undesirable. Yet, the challenge lies in defining which views are intolerable and determining the degree of extremity that warrants state action. Extremism is often measured by its divergence from mainstream opinion, making it a fluid and subjective concept. Even if one accepts the argument that the government should combat dangerous ideas, defining and effectively countering these diffuse, widely held beliefs remains a core issue.

 

One of the major criticisms of the Prevent strategy is the low threshold for referrals. The 2015 update to the strategy made it a statutory duty for teachers, doctors, and other public sector workers to report signs of extremism. This mandate has been widely criticized by human rights organizations, which argue that it has created a chilling effect, particularly among Muslim communities. Many feel less free to express their views, even on topics like British foreign policy, for fear of being reported. Amnesty International’s 2023 report on Prevent, titled *This is the Thought Police*, condemned the program for eroding basic human rights and curbing individuals’ freedoms based on little more than a “gut feeling.”

 

It is easier for politicians to advocate for countering “hateful beliefs” than to address the underlying causes of these beliefs. Since Prevent’s inception, the UK has faced economic stagnation, declining living standards, and cuts to public services. Community support programs that once helped promote social cohesion have largely disappeared. Thus, announcing new counter-extremism measures becomes a cheaper, quicker way for the government to appear proactive without tackling the deeper structural issues that drive people toward extreme ideologies.

 

Yet this strategy is not without risks. Women’s Aid, a prominent charity, has expressed concerns that gender-based abuse may be sidelined within a highly politicized counter-extremism framework. “If we are to overcome gender-based abuse, past approaches to deradicalisation by previous governments have left us cautious and concerned,” the charity warned, emphasizing the potential pitfalls of merging these issues.

 

If, as Cooper suggests, extremism has grown in recent years, it signals that the current strategies are not working. Adding misogyny into the equation without reevaluating the effectiveness of existing approaches is unlikely to produce different results. The core problem lies not just in identifying and categorizing dangerous ideas but in understanding and addressing the broader social and economic conditions that allow such ideologies to flourish.

 

Without a clearer, more nuanced approach, attempts to fight ‘extreme misogyny’ like terrorism risk repeating the same mistakes of past counter-extremism policies—sweeping gestures that do little to solve the underlying problems.

 

Credit: The Guardian 2024-08-31

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

[BritManToo]

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

Determining when misogyny crosses into extremism poses a significant challenge.

I'd say it's easy, don't want them educated, force them to cover their faces = extreme mysogyny.

But that's not white guys, so under two tier Kier it wouldn't count.

[herfiehandbag]

The measures justified by the need to fight terrorism, because it is an existential threat to our way of life and constitute a lethal threat to our people, are now to be applied to other, basically social campaigns.

 

Straight from the textbooks of authoritarian government.

[Chris Daley]

Never worked a day in his life and he gives out life advice.