Hate groupsBanning extremist groups is more political symbolism than effective counter-terrorism

By Lee Jarvis and Tim Legrand

Published 15 December 2016

For the first time in the UK, the government has moved to ban a right-wing, neo-Nazi group called National Action. Our own research has argued that the power to ban groups has questionable value for reducing the threat of terrorism. This skepticism dovetails with the work of other researchers who doubt that contemporary terrorist groups are appropriate targets for “listing” because they tend not to exist as coherent organizations with a fixed identity and an identifiable membership. The effectiveness of banning National Action, however, might be far less important than the communication of a message that groups such as this are unwelcome in contemporary British society.

For the first time in the UK, the government has moved to ban a right-wing, neo-Nazi group called National Action. On 12 December, the British home secretary, Amber Rudd, laid an order before parliament proscribing this relatively minor group, which has gained attention in recent months for its glorification of violence – notoriously celebrating the murder of MP Jo Cox – and the extreme tenor of its online posts. As Rudd said: “National Action is a racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic organization which stirs up hatred, glorifies violence and promotes a vile ideology, and I will not stand for it.”

The proscription order is expected to come into force on 16 December following a debate in parliament, which always approves the home secretary’s request for the addition of new groups to the UK’s list.

Being added to the UK’s list of proscribed organizations has significant implications for National Action. It is a criminal offence to belong, or profess to belong, to such an organization, and to support, or solicit support – financial or otherwise – for a banned group. This was the offence for which Anjem Choudary was convicted earlier this year in relation to the Islamic State. Other activities, including speaking at meetings promoting a proscribed organization, or wearing symbols of support are also banned.

Prior to the addition of National Action, the UK had proscribed a total of 84 groups – eight of which were added since the start of 2015 alone – a figure higher than the equivalent lists in Australia (23), Canada (54) and the US (61).

This power to ban groups is used widely around the world, and is a practice with roots going back through to both the ancient Roman Law known as “power of life and killing” and to when people were outlawed in pre-Magna Carta Britain.

Nebulous organisations
Our own research has argued that the power to ban groups has questionable value for reducing the threat of terrorism. Instead, more attention needs to be given to the processes through which politicians and others seek proscription and depict it as an important tool for increasing national security.