Mosque attacks rising since the Woolwich murder of Lee Rigby, censorship, increased monitoring and new bans may be coming
The number of reported attacks on mosques and Muslims since the Woolwich murder has continued to rise dramatically amid warnings from Muslim community leaders that the backlash which has seen attempted firebombings of mosques is being fueled by far right groups.
As participants in an English Defence League (EDL) march in Whitehall were recorded giving Nazi-style salutes, Faith Matters, which monitors anti-Muslim hatred, said the number of incidents in the past six days had risen to 193, including ten assaults on mosques.
The Independent adds that the figure compares to a total of 642 incidents in the previous 12 months – meaning the last week has seen a 15-fold increase on last year’s average of 12 attacks per week.
The spike came as Scotland Yard said it had made a tenth arrest in the investigation into the murder of soldier Lee Rigby on Wednesday.
Police had to be been deployed to guard Morden mosque after around five thousand Muslims gathered there on Friday to condemn the murder of 25-year-old soldier.
A mosque chairman has described how he was inside an Islamic cultural center with a young family when it was hit by petrol bombs.
The Grimsby Islamic Cultural Centre was targeted by arsonists Sunday night, despite an increased police presence in the area following another attack on the complex three days ago.
Mosque chairman Diler Gharib told the Grimsby Telegraph: “We had just finished our prayers and were discussing how to thank our neighbours for the support they have shown us over the past few days when we heard a bang and saw fire coming under the door.
“I grabbed a fire extinguisher and put it out and then two more petrol bombs hit the fire escape and the bin so I had to put those out too.”
Mr Gharib said police had been monitoring the mosque after it was targeted by youths last week and officers were able to quickly apprehend two suspects.
Here’s The Independents Summary of the proposed responses in England:
Outlawing extremist groups
Proposed: Banning organisations which advocate extremist ideas – even if they fall short of preaching violence.
How it would work: Lowering the threshold at which a group can be proscribed. Currently the Home Secretary can only ban it if it backs, or glorifies, violence
Have we been here before? Yes. Both Tony Blair and David Cameron have floated the idea of outlawing extremist organisations, but balked at the legal problems.
Pros: Terrorists are often radicalised by hardline groups before graduating into a violent ideology.
Cons: How do you define extremism? And where do you draw the line between so-called extremism and the expression of unpalatable views?
Will it happen? It’s hard to see how Ms May will be able to surmount the legal and practical difficulties encountered by the last Government.
Rabble-rousers banned from TV
Proposed: Stopping radical preachers from getting their message across on television.
How it could work: Ofcom could be given the authority to block extremists from getting screen time. Currently the watchdog can only intervene after a broadcast.
Have we been here before? Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein leaders were banned from TV and radio between 1988 and 1994 to, in Margaret Thatcher’s words, “starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend”.
Pros: Television still remains the most immediate way to reach sympathisers.
Cons: The Sinn Fein ban is widely agreed to have been counterproductive by giving its targets victim status. Hard to enforce given the multiplicity of foreign and internet channels.
Will it happen? Floated because of anger over interviews last week with the cleric Anjem Choudary, it could founder over accusations of curbing free speech. Ofcom is unlikely to want to police what interviewees might say.
Snoopers’ charter
Proposed: Requiring telecoms and internet firms to store details of customers’ website visits, calls, text messages and emails. It would cover information about the time and recipients of contacts, but not their contents.
How it could work: Theresa May has legislation, the draft Communications Data Bill, ready to roll out. But it has been vetoed by the Liberal Democrats.
Have we been here before? The last government proposed a similar scheme, creating a vast central database of message and internet details. It was abandoned in the face of civil liberties objections.
Pros: Terrorist networks use sophisticated techniques to evade detection and the legislation would enable the security services to keep pace.
Cons: No suggestion the Woolwich murders could have been foiled using this legislation and detectives already have extensive powers to track terror suspects.
Will it happen? Both the Tories and Labour support the move in principle. Ms May might try to negotiate a compromise with the Lib Dems.
Tackling extremist websites
Proposed: Tougher scrutiny of internet sites with the aim of rapidly removing websites supporting violence or glorifying terrorism.
How it could work: Almost 5,700 separate items judged to be inflammatory have been removed from the internet in the last three years. It’s not clear how Ms May envisages powers could be strengthened in this area. Internet companies could face legislation if they fail to act voluntarily.
Have we been here before? Extremist websites were first targeted by Tony Blair after the July 7 bombings in 2005.
Pros: Militant groups have proved adept at using the internet to influence followers and instruct them in terrorist techniques.
Cons: A daunting task given the scale of the internet and the ease with which extremists can set up a new website almost as soon as one is removed by the authorities.
Will it happen? It is happening already – the Home Office says police are “scaling up” operations against militant websites. However, further legislation could be complex and time-consuming.
Tackling radicalisation
Proposed: Further efforts to tackle recruitment by militants in campuses, prisons and on the streets.
How it could work: Requiring colleges to banish extremist preachers from the premises, extra work with susceptible prisoners and obliging mosque committees to monitor speakers.
Have we been here before? The last Government set up the Prevent programme to tackle radicalisation at its root; this administration has opted for more targeted work.
Pros: Helps divert people from violence before they become dangerous.
Cons: Expensive work, particularly given current austerity measures, and critics say it puts too much responsibility on universities and community leaders.
Will it happen? Yes. The Government will be under pressure to reverse recent cuts to the Prevent programme.