Sara Khan Is Defining “Hateful Extremism”

by TR News

The Commission for Countering Extremism works closely with the Home Office, which makes it extremely influential. Sara Khan is defining “Hateful Extremism”.

What Is Hateful Extremism?

The head of the Commission for Countering Extremism is Sarah Khan, she was charged with the task of reviewing the government’s current strategy in tackling Extremism.

Sarah and her team of “experts” have concluded that it is necessary to challenge “hateful extremism”. That sounds perfectly fine, however, to be sure we need to look at how Sara and her team of “experts” will define “hateful extremism”.

Click HERE.

Sara Khan’s report summarises “Hateful Extremism” as:

  1. Behaviours that can incite and amplify hate, or engage in persistent hatred, or equivocate about and make the moral case for violence.
  2. That draw on hateful, hostile or supremacist beliefs directed at an out-group who are perceived as a threat to the wellbeing, survival or success of an in-group.
  3. That cause, or are likely to cause, harm to individuals, communities or wider society.

Hateful Extremism is, by the very definition suggested by “experts” of the Commission for Countering Extremism, “subjective” and down to interpretation. The definition that has been suggested is so broad-ranging ANYONE can pick and chose what is “hateful extremism”. In fact, it is just as “broad-ranging” as the proposed definition of “Islamophobia”, its an irony not lost on us.

The Commission “Experts”

The Commission’s Expert Group has a few “standout experts” that have helped formulate the definition of “Hateful Extremism”.

Nick Lowles Has An MBE In Fabrication

Nick Lowles Has An MBE In Fabrication

Hope Not Hate’s disgraced and discredited Nick Lowles is a far-left agitator and has managed to worm his way into groups that have a profound effect on government policy. We have already exposed Nick, and his staff at Hope Not Hate for conspiring with the BBC and their ex-employee John Sweeney.

Hope Not Hate are not after the truth, they are ideologues after a policy or narrative win at all times by any means necessary. If that means colluding and conspiring with the likes of the BBC to destroy Tommy Robinson with manufactured salacious lies, they are happy to do so. You can see Hope Not Hate’s involvement with the BBC to destroy Tommy Robinson with fabricatied stories by watching the Panodrama documentary HERE.

Hope Not Hate set out to de-platform people from social media, people with views they do not agree with, you can find that on their website by clicking HERE.

Fiyaz Mughal A Hateful Conman

Fiyaz Mughal A Hateful Conman

Another “credible” expert that the Commission for Countering Extremism uses is none other than Fiyaz Mughal of Faith Matters and Tell Mamma. Fiyaz’s website Tell Mamma is devoted to “addressing anti-Muslim hatred, racism, prejudice and bigotry.” On its face, it sounds like a worthwhile cause, the only issue is that the website has been used to spin a victim narrative that has little foundation in fact.

The website has grossly “over-reported” hate crimes that did not hold water. When the “hate crimes” Tell Mamma propagandised were cross-referenced with reports from the Association of Chief Police Officers, those figures did not add up. There was no correlation or corroboration of anything resembling factual coming from the website. This expose led to Tell Mamma losing government funding although it had already reaped in £375,000 from the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2012.

The Tell Mamma website business model was and still is based on finding hate, it needs “hate” to stay relevant and generate revenue. You can read more about Tell Mamma’s methods by clicking HERE.

We have only mentioned two individuals who sit on the Commission for Countering Extremism “expert group”. Both are tainted by their ideologies, both have scant regard for freedom of speech, both share the necessity to view contrary, albeit factual and dissenting opinions as “hate” for their own nefarious purposes.

Facts do not care about feelings.

You can find the list of “experts” by clicking HERE.

Examples Of Hate

The Commission give a few examples of what would constitute “hateful extremism” so we will list them here:

Examples of inciting and amplifying of hatred against others include the active propagation of anti-minority hatred from Far Right demonstrations in Sunderland or activists from Hizb ut-Tahrir spreading hate-filled views about LGBTQ+ people during the row over relationships teaching in Birmingham.

Examples of making the moral case for violence include a director from an Islamist organisation describing a British suicide bomber’s act as “a price worth paying” or an activist from a banned Far Right group tweeting that the man who murdered Jo Cox MP was “a hero, we need more people like him to butcher the race traitors”.

Examples of persistent hatred towards individuals including the shocking finding that three quarters of those countering extremism on the ground had personally received abuse, intimidation or harassment – because of their work.

We can safely say that hating people just because of the colour of their skin or just because they are part of any other minority group is bigoted and stupid. HOWEVER “if” someones “perception of hate” criminalises people for having a contrary opinion or for citing facts that people do not like, then we have to object. Freedom of speech means freedom to be offensive. It also means freedom to be factual and to put “feelings” aside.

As long as speech does not directly incite or call for violence, then it should be tolerated, even if it’s disagreeable. Punishing speech is just another way of controlling or coercing behaviour, that is something straight out of Communist China, Stalin’s Russia and Hitlers Germany. There’s nothing democratic about coercing conformity to accepted speech dictates from activist ideologues. Persecuting contrary opinions should be looked at as being entirely fascistic and authoritarian in nature and totally at odds with article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We have a right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. FULL STOP!

Article 19 – Freedom Of Speech

People do object to the LGBTQ indoctrination of our children, that does not mean every person who objects to it is a bigot, far from it in fact. LGBTQ indoctrination will form part of a mandatory curriculum that ALL schools have to adhere to from September 2020. The LGBTQ agenda will be promoted and taught under the guise of “relationship education” and “sex education”. We have already spelt out numerous times why we object to the LGBTQ lobby and the government forcing confusion onto our children. Read more about that HERE, and HERE and HERE.

Anyone who uses freedom of speech to glorify murder or to incite murder should be dealt with, freedom of speech does not allow any direct incitement to kill or physically hurt anyone. There is perhaps one caveat to that point. Let’s say a jihadi kills some Non-Muslims in a terrible act of terror, then he is caught and killed by law enforcement or the British Army, his death can and should be celebrated without fear of thought police administering their authoritarian justice. That individual was a murdering terrorist and not worthy of any human rights. The terrorist didn’t respect the human rights of those he murdered in cold blood. The terrorist and those supporting his actions should not be protected by any hate speech legislation. Hating terror is fine.

Persistent hatred, intimidation or harassment towards individuals is another subjective example. Individuals, who counter extremism on the ground? Who are they exactly? Are they social justice warrior misfits? Are they Socialists, Communists or radical anarchistic left-wingers hiding behind fake slogans like “Anti-Fascism”?

If that is the case, the agitators and fabricators on the radical left should expect hostility. They should not be protected from opposing or dissenting points of view. If individual ideologues or group-think hive-minds continually demonstrate and spew hatred for opposing opinions, and call people “fascist, racist, Nazi, xenophobe” without justification, they should expect to be challenged and called out for their slovenly, abusive stereotypes, even if that means having to suffer being called hurty names.

Stop press – not all Muslims are terrorists.
Stop press – not all Patriots and Nationalists are goose stepping Hitlerites!

Infantilising and protecting the demagoguery of political ideologues is not a matter for the Home Office to deal with. Infringing on our right to freedom of speech and expression is an act of tyranny, the Home Office should be concerned with that instead. Freedom of speech and expression is a human right, it’s a moral right, it’s a right that was passed down to us by our forefathers who made the ultimate sacrifice fighting authoritarian dictatorships so we could live as free people in a free nation state.

It’s a right we will not give up.

Lest we forget!

You may also like

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Close Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy