Terrorists and radicalisation
It's a common perception that some terrorist suspects get more coverage and attention than their fellow nutcases, but why might that be?
Terence Gavan's story is in almost all of today's papers in one way or another - a dangerous man who has thankfully been brought to justice. But what is it about his story that's different? Look at the first part of the story:
A former BNP member who turned his bedroom in his mother's house into a bomb and weapons factory has been jailed for 11 years.
From the outside, the house in Batley, West Yorkshire, betrayed no sign of Terence Gavan's sinister pastime.
But when officers from West Yorkshire Police entered the property with a search warrant as part of a firearms investigation in May 2009, they were to discover the largest cache of home-made bombs and other weapons ever seen in the region.
The rest of the house that the 39-year-old bus-driver shared with his mother was "immaculate", according to police, in stark contrast to the tangle of bomb-making equipment, improvised weapons and materials filling the locked attic room.
What religion is he? It's not there. Because it's assumed that it's not part of the story, and not relevant to the threat he posed. How did he become an extremist? That's not mentioned either. It's not been investigated, or if it has, it's not been deemed relevant by either the prosecutors or the media reporting it.
Compare that to the story of another terror convict, Nicky Reilly:
A Muslim convert has admitted launching a failed suicide nail-bomb attack on a Devon restaurant.
Nicky Reilly, 22, pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to attempted murder at Exeter's Giraffe restaurant on 22 May.
Reilly, from Plymouth, had been preparing the attack when a bomb went off in his hands in a toilet cubicle.
Police believe Reilly, said to have learning difficulties, was "preyed upon and radicalised by others". He will be sentenced on 21 November.
First of all, Reilly's religion is deemed important - he converted to Islam. Secondly, the idea of 'radicalisation' is mentioned, and that's an important thread in all this. The narrative we like to read about terrorists who want to bomb people is that they are either Muslims to begin with, or become Muslims, then become 'radicalised' somehow, then they're terrorists. With the far-right terror convicts, there's no such interest in the causes, no process of 'radicalisation' is deemed to have taken place - or if it has, it's not deeemed relevant. Look at another far-right terror convict, Martin Gilleard:
A neo-Nazi paedophile who had four nail bombs under the bed he let his five-year-old son sleep in, has been jailed for 16 years.
White-supremacist Martyn Gilleard was found guilty on Tuesday of two counts of terror offences and had pleaded guilty to possessing 39,000 indecent images and owning ammunition without a licence.
There, the man's paedophilia is listed alongside his terrorist intentions. Like Terence Gavan, there's no attempt to describe a process of 'radicalisation' that has taken place, to list his religion or anything like that - it's assumed that his political leanings have brought him to terrorism, but they is no equivalent radicalisation narrative in place. He was far-right, he became a terrorist. There is no list of places he went to or people he met who may have 'preyed upon' him; that side of the story isn't of interest.
Compare again, to another terror convict, Isa Ibrahim:
A former public schoolboy was today found guilty of plotting to carry out a suicide bombing using a vest packed with explosives at a shopping centre in Bristol.
Andrew Ibrahim, who changed his named to Isa Ibrahim by deed poll Andrew Ibrahim, who changed his named to Isa Ibrahim by deed poll Photograph: Rex Features
Isa Ibrahim, 20, made viable explosives, manufactured a suicide vest and carried out reconnaissance on the Broadmead shopping centre. Detectives believe he was about to launch an attack, possibly targeting the centre's busy food court area.
Police are heralding the case as a breakthrough as they say it is the first in which the information about a British would-be terrorist planning an atrocity in the UK has come just from a Muslim community.
Ibrahim's extremism did not come to the attention of the authorities until members of a mosque he attended grew worried about his behaviour and went to Avon and Somerset police.
Again, the 'radicalisation' element comes into the story. Ibrahim was a nice public schoolboy, then changed his name and became radicalised, then he became a terror convict. So is it just a case of a certain narrative being true, or something different going on when it's far-right terrorists as opposed to Muslim terrorists? Why do Muslim suspects get different coverage, and why is 'radicalisation' an important part of the story?
I think the answer, this time, might not be in the prejudices of the media. I think it has to do with how these people are brought to justice. Gavan was found as part of a firearms investigation; Gilleard by officers looking for pornography. Ibrahim, on the other hand, had been marked out as a terror suspect from the word go by fellow Muslims who were disturbed by his behaviour; and Reilly had actually got to the point of detonating his bomb.
So there's something else going on, I think. These far-right terrorists are stumbled upon - and there's no big fear about them, no worry about a wave of terror sweeping the country (although the Mail, bless them, did try to create such an impression last year). As well as that, there is no willingness to understand the process by which ordinary people with far-right views take that step to become a serious threat - there is no equivalent of 'radicalisation', and so there's a gap in the understanding of these people.
The Muslim terror convicts' story comes from a template - young man, preyed on by external forces (often forces with tentacles overseas, or so we're led to believe), converts and becomes radicalised, then is a terrorist. That's an easily understandable narrative, and one that is terrifying in itself - that any young man could be susceptible to that kind of change, with Islam playing a big part in it. Whether that's right or not, I don't know; but that's the story that people are told time and time again, and what we're led to believe is the case. But if that is the case, then what happens to convert far-right terrorists? We just don't know because there isn't the willingness to understand. I think that's because there isn't the willingness to see them as being as much of a threat.
We don't seem to fear the Gavans of this world as much as we do the Ibrahims, and that's reflected in media coverage. Of course, it's true that more Islamic terror attacks have been completed than far-right ones, and that's worth bearing in mind as to why people might be more scared. But it's assumed that there is a spectral force of Islamic terror driving these attacks, and they are evidence of the bogeyman. We don't fear the far-right terror types as much; we're not concerned about 'radicalisation' of young men and assume, perhaps, that individuals act out of their own steam rather than being controlled by scary foreign forces. Whether we're right to be less scared of them, I'm not so sure.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
January 16th, 2010 - 09:01
These people are all dangerous.
Some of them say they are killing for religious reasons, some for political ones.
So far as such ideological murders are concerned over the past 10 years islamo-fascists lead the way in the UK and worldwide. While some try to broaden their reasons to include "Uk foreign policy" the root is jihad, as many have declared.
Obviously islamo-fascists are a tiny minority among muslims – if their self declarations are accepted.
On the other hand people dispose towards the fascism of the right in various ways, but usually by way of seeing people unlike themselves as untermenshen – inferior beings to be at best utterly disregarded.
January 16th, 2010 - 09:21
Muslim terrorists become radicalised BECAUSE they're Muslim. All Muslims are potential terrorists, including me. I've got a copy of Sayyid Qutb's Milestones here. If I read it, next week, I'll be blowing myself on platform 3 at Kings Cross. It's inevitable.
And don't go reading any academic ethnologies on British Muslim communities, or else you might realise that 99.99% of Muslims are less likely to become terrrorists than Rolf Harris.
White people become terrorists because their loonies. Being far-right doesn't make you a potentially violent nutter, even tho' the higher echelons of the BNP are smattered with convicted thugs, and have links to violent groups like KKK.
And don't go reading all those undercover exposes of the British far-right published in Searchlight over the years, or else you might realise that 100% of the BNP's hardcore membership are stark raving bonkers.
January 16th, 2010 - 10:00
I think that in you're final couple of sentences you have put your finger on it.
For almost the whole of human history humans have had to deal with people who want to kill them, from cave man right through to current conflicts. It is something that, I think, the human brain has become hard wired to deal with.
What we have now though, in the form of Islamic extremists, is someone who wants to kill us who is not themselves afraid to die in the process. And that is scarier.
I have friends in the forces, you probably do as well. These are friends who have been trained to kill other people, it is something quite normal in our lives. Yet as far as I know none of them are up for suicide missions and I would be bloody scared of them if they were.
Over all I don't think that there is any way to get away from the idea that there is a difference in mind set between someone prepared to kill and someone prepared to be a suicide bomber. There has to be another process at work in the psychee of someone that comes to think that way and that is why there is a different narrative in these stories.
January 16th, 2010 - 11:52
I understand to an extent, but I think their religion, as well as what type of person they are, is already indicated in the first line, without the need to talk about radicalisation e.g. BNP, neo-Nazi Pedophile.
I'll agree, though, that there is a 'scary' element used against Muslims. For example, yesterday's Sun (yes, I read it
) had that knob Choudary(sp) and his "WEB OF TERROR!!!!!" or something to a similar extent. The same thing happens when they try to epitomise Islam and show a woman in a mysterious, woooh, Burkha.
January 16th, 2010 - 12:15
I think this raises the notion in the paper's collective mind that far-right lunatics aren't created, they are born, whereas there is some sinister force at work 'converting' other seemingly well to do young men to radical Islam (assuming that is actually the case). There is, of course, no heed given to what made these people so disenfranchised and susceptable to this process in the first place. No, they were just toddling along happily being public school alumni when suddenly BANG! they became radicalised Muslim terrorists…
There's an awful lot of grey area in the reporting of the various disturbed people who feel it is their right to hurt others and I'm glad I'm not the only one picking up on it.
Also, and you can moderate this bit if you want, I've been insanely busy training as a teacher so haven't been up to speed on your more recent posts, but in no way should you stop writing if you enjoy it, and in no way should you feel restricted in what you write about as long as you enjoy it. I'll still be reading as and when I get the chance, regardless of what you're writing about, simply because you're a good writer who can argue a case well through the application of sense and humanity; and that appeals to me.
January 16th, 2010 - 13:23
What religion is he? It's not there. Because it's assumed that it's not part of the story
No, but he is described as "ex-BNP", and the comments on the Daily Mail article are full of BNP voters complaining that his (previous) party allegiance has been brought up. So really, there's not much difference between describing Gavan as "ex-BNP" and describing Reilly as "a Muslim convert".
But look at those comments… look how many green arrows the pro-BNP comments get, and how many red arrows the anti-BNP comments get. Obviously this isn't representative of the public at large, but I'd love to know what the powers that be at the Daily Mail make of it. It's enough to make you wonder if Paul Dacre himself is actually a BNP voter, and is happy to see his website used as a BNP rallying ground.
January 16th, 2010 - 13:25
The difference between the way the two are portrayed could reflect quite positively on the media. Converts to Muslim need to be 'radicalised' before they turn into terrorists – implying (obviously quite correctly) that just being a Muslim doesn't make you a nutcase.
In the case of Gavan, reporters seem to be implying that just noting he is an ex-BNP member is enough to make him appear dangerously unstable. Muslims need to be radicalised to become dangerous; BNP members and white supremacists just ARE.
January 16th, 2010 - 14:50
I was thinking about this issue the other day! I supposed the editors of the press, being mostly white middle class blokes, are less concerned about being blown up by the BNP's terrorists, even though their cack-handed approach would seem to suggest it's just as likely they'd blow up a random street than any intended target. As you suggest, it's a ridiculous double standard.
January 18th, 2010 - 00:15
Partly it is to do with the fact that the threat from Islamic terrorists is a global problem, whereas the threat from white nationalists is only a national problem. Each country has their own Terence Gavans, but they're all acting on their own despicable causes.
Partly it's the symbolism of 9/11. The white nationalists have never managed to pull off anything so large and historic as the destruction of the World Trade Centre.
But that's far from the whole story. It has a lot to do with the war on terror, which is better described as a war on Islamic terror. It is in the governments' best interests to make the threat seem greater than it is (this though, is the exact opposite of what needs to be done to deal with terrorism, since "terror" is what the terrorists want) in order to distract from domestic issues, and increase the power of the executive. Look at the number of illiberal powers granted to the governments here and in America since 9/11. Look at the countries that America is either at war with, or bombing: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan (and we're surprised when Muslims in those countries get pissed off with that?).
But the threat is nowhere near as great as it is made out. You are far more likely to die of cancer or die in a car crash than in a terrorist attack, but we don't spend billions trying to stop those deaths. There are no calls to restrict our liberties in the name of road safety.
Look at the pattern of Islamic terrorism in recent years. There was a shoe bomber, so security was changed to make people take their shoes off. There was a liquid bomb plot, so liquids were restricted on planes. The other week there was the underwear bomber. Now politicians are busy getting full body scanners in.
But no calls for anything after Terence Gavan. So I see this as partly: where the government goes, so does the media. It happened with Iraq, when even liberal papers like the New York Times and the Observer bought into the WMD propaganda.
And what happens if the terrorists do what drug mules do, and put the bomb up their arse?
What happens if the terrorists don't bomb a plane, but go for a train, bus, subway, or building? There's nothing to stop me (and I wouldn't want to of course) making a bomb, and then getting on a train bound for Birmingham New Street station with it.
All the politicians are doing is trying to prevent the last terrorist attack. But the terrorists will always be one step ahead.
Instead of preventing the last attack with new draconian security powers and billions of pounds, money would be better spent on investigative police work, which after all is what caught the liquid bombers. It didn't matter that they were going to bomb planes. It didn't matter they were going to use liquid explosives rather than solid or gas. They were caught before all that mattered.
You probably can't prevent every terrorist attack. But since when have we asked the government to prevent every crime? We've known for hundreds of years that's an unreasonable request, so why should it be any different? If the number of deaths bother people, invest even more in cancer research, and save more lives. Or lower the speed limit. If people's lives are that important to politicians, they'd do that instead of having 42 days or whatever. But there are tens of millions of road drivers. And not many Muslims, the ones most likely to be affected, who are a convenient "other". Who cares about the rights of a minority, when we can drive 10 miles an hour faster?
I'm not calling for a reduction in the speed limit, but it makes more sense than the war on terror.
January 18th, 2010 - 08:23
One bugbear I have with this, it's far-right this, far right that – The BNP are hideously left, on a par with Labour, to the point where their policies (Gulags for slags? Remember that one?) are often indistinguishable.
Could we please stop painting these nutjobs in economic terms? Gavan the Burka Bomber doesn't give a stuff about flat taxes or classic liberalism, he wants the Muslims Out, by death or deportation, or a combination thereof.
I've yet to know of any low-tax, free market, small government men who want to blow up shopping malls.
Oh, on another note, one thing I do agree on; I'll happily add my rifle to your Internet Democratising Journalism Brigade.
Huh, maybe we need a catchier name for that.
P'cat http://www.protagonistknight.blogspot.com