Travis Frain, a survivor of the Westminster Bridge attack. Video by Freddie Foulston for City News
SHARE:
Westminster terrorism attack survivor says important questions will not be answered by the changing definition of extremism, one that does not inspire “confidence”.
Listen to this article powered by AI.
The previous counter-terrorism strategy programme known as Prevent from 2011, has been updated to: “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others;
Or undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights.
Or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”
Michael Gove defends new extremism definition to MPs. Source AP.
City News spoke to a victim of the 2017 Westminster Bridge terrorist attack, who questioned the reasons for the government’s timing, despite supporting a redefinition.
Travis, who was 19 at the time of the attack, stated: “I do question the reasons for (the government) doing this now.”
He continued: “It should be followed up with more stringent definition of other terms in this area, for example terrorism and perhaps a proper explanation of what constitutes extremism.
“If you’re going down that route then the next question is what differentiates violent extremism from terrorism. Those are questions I feel probably aren’t going to be answered by this review or change in the definition. I hope they are. But I am not filled with much confidence.”
The government has not responded directly to the comment, but the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove described how values of inclusivity and tolerance were “under challenge from extremist groups which are radicalising our young people and driving greater polarisation.”
Defending the new definition to MPs, he continued it “makes clear extremism can lead to the radicalisation of individuals, deny people their full rights and opportunities, suppress freedom of expression, incite hatred, weaken social cohesion, and ultimately, it can lead to acts of terrorism”.
While the Government asserted that the change is “in no way intending to restrict freedom of expression, religion or belief”, critics disagree claiming it will limit freedom or target Muslims disproportionately.
London Mayor concerned definition will “divide communities”
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s World At One broadcast, the Mayor said:
“My worry is by labelling these groups, many local authorities, mayors, public authorities won’t engage with them and they’ll go underground.”
He added: “I’m nervous that what Michael Gove will do intentionally or unintentionally, it’s for him to answer, its lead to a situation where many Muslims think it’s ‘them and us’.”
Others however, think this is an opportunity to have an “open” conversation.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan raised concerns over the Government’s new definition. CREDIT: AP
Speaking to City News, Dr Michele Groppi, a KCL professor in Defence Studies, said “the government is doing right to raise this flag”, urging the public: “let’s talk about this, let’s compare views”.
However, the professor recommended “people should absolutely feel free to march in the streets of London and protest and call for what they believe is fair.
“We shouldn’t be equating them to extremists or terrorists just because we don’t like what they are chanting. This is just not right; it is just not fair.”
The Government have not yet responded to requests for comment.
Submitted Article
Headline
Short Headline
Standfirst
Published Article
HeadlineWestminster Bridge terrorist attack survivor says new extremism definition does not inspire “confidence”
Short HeadlineTerrorist attack survivor doubts government definition of extremism
StandfirstMayor of London worries that definition will "divide communities" while Michael Gove defends it to MPs.
Westminster terrorism attack survivor says important questions will not be answered by the changing definition of extremism, one that does not inspire “confidence”.
Listen to this article powered by AI.
The previous counter-terrorism strategy programme known as Prevent from 2011, has been updated to: “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others;
Or undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights.
Or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”
Michael Gove defends new extremism definition to MPs. Source AP.
City News spoke to a victim of the 2017 Westminster Bridge terrorist attack, who questioned the reasons for the government’s timing, despite supporting a redefinition.
Travis, who was 19 at the time of the attack, stated: “I do question the reasons for (the government) doing this now.”
He continued: “It should be followed up with more stringent definition of other terms in this area, for example terrorism and perhaps a proper explanation of what constitutes extremism.
“If you’re going down that route then the next question is what differentiates violent extremism from terrorism. Those are questions I feel probably aren’t going to be answered by this review or change in the definition. I hope they are. But I am not filled with much confidence.”
The government has not responded directly to the comment, but the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove described how values of inclusivity and tolerance were “under challenge from extremist groups which are radicalising our young people and driving greater polarisation.”
Defending the new definition to MPs, he continued it “makes clear extremism can lead to the radicalisation of individuals, deny people their full rights and opportunities, suppress freedom of expression, incite hatred, weaken social cohesion, and ultimately, it can lead to acts of terrorism”.
While the Government asserted that the change is “in no way intending to restrict freedom of expression, religion or belief”, critics disagree claiming it will limit freedom or target Muslims disproportionately.
London Mayor concerned definition will “divide communities”
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s World At One broadcast, the Mayor said:
“My worry is by labelling these groups, many local authorities, mayors, public authorities won’t engage with them and they’ll go underground.”
He added: “I’m nervous that what Michael Gove will do intentionally or unintentionally, it’s for him to answer, its lead to a situation where many Muslims think it’s ‘them and us’.”
Others however, think this is an opportunity to have an “open” conversation.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan raised concerns over the Government’s new definition. CREDIT: AP
Speaking to City News, Dr Michele Groppi, a KCL professor in Defence Studies, said “the government is doing right to raise this flag”, urging the public: “let’s talk about this, let’s compare views”.
However, the professor recommended “people should absolutely feel free to march in the streets of London and protest and call for what they believe is fair.
“We shouldn’t be equating them to extremists or terrorists just because we don’t like what they are chanting. This is just not right; it is just not fair.”
The Government have not yet responded to requests for comment.
