How should we define extremism and terrorism?

The government has been grappling with the definitions of terrorism and extremism following the conviction of 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana for the murders of three young girls in Southport last July.

The attacker, who was jailed for a minimum of 52 years, was obsessed with extreme violence but not driven, according to police, by clear ideological motive. So he did not fit the criteria for the counter-extremism Prevent programme and was not prosecuted for the murders under terrorism laws.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is set to reject new advice from Home Office officials to widen the official scope of extremism to include "violence against women, spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories, fascination with gore or involvement in the online subculture called the "manosphere" - which promotes misogyny and opposition to feminism", said the BBC. The government instead wants to remain focused on what it considers to be bigger threats: Islamist and far-right extremism.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What did the commentators say?

There is a sense that "only terrorism captures the horrors" of an attack like the one in Southport, Jonathan Hall KC, who is reviewing terrorism legislation and its definition in light of the murders, told the BBC.

Expanding its scope would mean counter-terrorism powers can be used in similar cases and possibly help prevent them happening in the first place. But working out which type of violence to include, and which to exclude, will be a challenge.

If the current definition of terrorism is "thought to be too narrow because it does not apply to extreme violence for its own sake", then "a new test will be needed to distinguish between it and ordinary crime", Hall said in the Financial Times.

Keir Starmer last week floated a new definition: "violence clearly intended to terrorise". But this risks "too many false positives", such as domestic violence, extortion by criminal gangs and serious hooliganism.

When Labour came to power, Cooper ordered a review to inform the party's policy on extremism. The subsequent report, leaked to Policy Exchange this week, "makes for disturbing reading", said The Telegraph, as it suggests extremism should be based on behaviours rather than ideologies. Expanding the definition will "overwhelm the system and make it even harder to spot those who have both been radicalised and pose a danger". It also downplays Islamism "as just another threat".

What next?

Hall said he will keep an "open mind" about the definition of terrorism, he told The Times, as he reviews the law, but is wary of expanding it "too much".

The report on extremism is yet to be signed off by ministers. Starmer has said his government is "looking carefully where the key challenges are".