In what is being called an unprecedented move, Home Secretary Amber Rudd is to put a bill before parliament on Monday that will, if approved, ban the nationalist group National Action. The proposals will officially class the group as a ‘terrorist organisation’, making membership, support or incitement to support a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, with breaches of said law incurring fines and potentially a 10 year prison term. The move comes in the aftermath of a ‘rise in anti-semetic’ incidents, culminating in a 2 year prison sentence for Joshua Bonehill-Paine for writing anti-semetic articles about a Labour MP, in which he referred to her as a ‘money-grabber’. The announcement by the Home Secretary also references the muder of Jo Cox MP, who in June 2016 was murdered by Thomas Mair, who incidentally was not a member of any far-right group. National Action have been blamed by default for all these incidents, even though they had very little to do with any of them.
The definition of terrorism, as written in the Oxford Dictionary, describes the act as ‘the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims‘. However, in the Terrorism Act 2000, the British government gave a much broader definition of what constitutes an act of terrorism. The legislation states that an act of terrorism is, ‘acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto‘. It is clear that this definition is more open to abuse than the actual dictionary definition of the term, which is fairly direct and clear. The act of parliament also gives the police and the judicial system powers over and above what we could normally expect, such as the power to arrest with a warrant, detain for 28 days without charge (terrorism Act 2006), stop and search without permission, and even trial without jury in Northern Ireland.
However, even based on Her Majesty’s government’s definition of terrorism, it is difficult to see exactly why National Action has been ‘proscribed’. They have not used violence to achieve political aims, they do not advocate violence except in a hypothetical sense (“the communists are going in the chamber once we’re in charge”) and they do not explicitly advocate for the overthrowing of Her Majesty’s government. There have been two murder enquiries vaguely linked to National Socialist ideology in the UK, that of Jo Cox and that of an Indian shopkeeper (attempted). In Jo Cox’ instance, Thomas Mair who committed the crime was not a member of National Action or any other far-right organisations, he just happened to subscribe to a neo-Nazi American magazine and had Nazi memorabilia at his home. The man who attempted to kill an Indian shopkeeper in an act of stupidity was not a member of National Action, although he did carry something with their emblem on it.
In fact, it is difficult to see why National Action is being banned at all. If the same logic was applied to Islamic terrorism, then the religion of Islam would be banned in the UK. God knows it has caused more deaths than any right-wing political ideology in the western world, so the government is acting in an immensely hypocritical way with its current actions. Perhaps it is so they can find other nationalists guilty by association, as is permitted under the Terrorism Act, without them actually being a member of any group?
The concern here is that the predictions surrounding the anti-terror legislation are coming to fruition. Like in the US with the ‘Patriot Act’, counter terror laws have bared resemblance to a sort of Bolshevik thought control law, designed to not just ban groups, but ban ideologies. With the government having the power to ban pretty much any group they dislike, the far-right will be decimated by them. National Socialism as an ideology, as well as nationalism more generally, is being linked to acts of violence it has nothing to do with, particularly in the media of late. After one incident, the media a drumming up fears of ‘far-right terrorism’, whilst the politicians are taking the bait and bringing out a sledgehammer to crack a rather small nut.
With this latest prohibition, it is only a matter of time before people begin to fear arrest for displaying nationalistic tendencies of any kind, which is of course one of the key aims of the Frankfurt School and their cultural Marxist agenda. That is, to detach the people’s loyalties to their people and their nation and replace said loyalties with class warfare. This is much more easily achieved if the former loyalties to nation and people are explicitly outlawed. National Action are the first step, but will by no means be the last right-wing group to be banned in the UK. There are already noises in the media calling Britain First, a group of anti-Islam Christian nationalists, a terrorist organisation due to their strong promotion of Christianity. How long is it before major political parties such as UKIP receive similar treatment? Nigel Farage was already considered culpable for the murder of Jo Cox by some in the left-wing media establishment, and there are influential charities and professional victims leaning on the government to take measures against the party for relatively trivial and certainly not criminal matters.
But, this is the world we live in, where “Black Lives Matter” can incite people to go out and murder white police officers free from interference, but another group can be banned for patriotism and the odd sentence that hurts the feelings of some leftist snowflake. It is an upside down scenario, but one from which we can actually take hope. After all, what is the surest way to attract interest in a concept, group or ideology? To ban it, of course. Human beings are naturally curious of the forbidden and intrigued by what is perceived to be close to the edge of acceptance. We are always, as open-minded people, looking to push the boundaries of social norms, particularly if we are looking to change these norms.
SO whilst this may appear to signal the incoming of an Orwellian police state, there are many positives to take from this situation.
*For the benefit of the authorities, it must be stressed that the author does not support or endorse, nor is a member of or in any way affiliated to, National Action.