Understanding extremism in Scotland: stakeholder perceptions and views

3. Understanding of extremism

This section presents findings relating to participants’ understanding of the concept of extremism. It covers participants’ understandings of extremism and views on the challenges associated with defining it; perceptions of extremist views and actions and where the boundaries of extremism sit in relation to these; views on definitions and categorisations used in other countries; and views on the links between hate crime, sectarianism, terrorism and extremism.

3.1. Defining extremism

The challenges with defining extremism

Early in the interview, participants were asked how confident they felt that they understand what is meant by the term extremism. Many participants said that they felt confident in their understanding of the term, particularly those who are involved in the delivery of Prevent in Scotland. However, not all could articulate a definition when asked to do so, with many commenting that while they understand the meaning of the term and could recognise it if they saw it, it is difficult to summarise concisely.

‘I know what extremism is. Can I quote it verbatim right now, probably not no. But in terms of being able to identify when something would be considered extremism or not, I can do that.’ (Police sector participant)

Participants raised various reasons why they felt that extremism is a challenging concept to define. Firstly, many discussed the subjective nature of extremism. They highlighted that because extremism is often defined in terms of views and behaviours which are outside the norm, the concept can assume different meanings depending on what the norm is. This means that views and behaviours that may be considered extremist in a particular cultural, social or political context may not be considered extremist in another.

‘It’s a really difficult concept to grasp because it means something different if you look at it in different contexts, different political contexts or cultural contexts.’ (Education sector participant)

The dynamic and changing nature of extremism was also discussed, with participants highlighting that views and behaviours which would be considered extremist now could previously have been considered acceptable or mainstream.

‘I suppose it’s an individual who has views that society would deem to be on the extremes, but from a subjective perspective it’s really hard because there are views that we would consider to be extreme now that historically might have been mainstream ideas.’ (Police sector participant)

These points are reflected in wider research on defining extremism, with authors such as Martins (2020) and Redgrave et al. (2020) noting that the subjective nature of the term is partly why there remains a general lack of consensus on how it should be defined in the literature.

Other participants commented that it is difficult to define extremism without restricting free speech.

‘One of the challenges with the term extremism is that fine line between freedom of speech and extremism. It’s working out where to draw that line, when has something moved beyond offensive and when is it putting people in harm’s way.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

This point is also made by Redgrave et al. (2020), who argue that when extremism is defined too widely there are risks of curtailing rights to protest and free speech, but also that when it is defined too narrowly ‘much of what most fair-minded people would think of as extremism is left out’.

Participants also discussed difficulties associated with not having a shared understanding of the term extremism, particularly in the context of Prevent. The Prevent duty places an obligation on practitioners working in the local authority, health and social care, education, prisons, and police sectors to recognise where there are signs that an individual has been or is being drawn into terrorism and be aware of the process for providing the individual with support, including by making a Prevent referral (Home Office, 2021a). The Prevent duty guidance (Home Office, 2021a) highlights that extremism can ‘create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists exploit’. However, participants noted that if practitioners in Scotland have differing understandings of what is meant by extremism, they may have different thresholds for what constitutes a referral.

‘I think it’s really important to be able to define extremism, terrorism, radicalisation. For [Prevent] to work we need to be talking about the same things, but I think people get confused and we mix these things up.’ (Other private/third sector participant)

This point is also reflected in wider research. For example, Thorton and Bouhana (2019) carried out interviews with practitioners involved in Prevent delivery in England and found that thresholds for referrals tended to be discretionary and differed between local authorities.

Stakeholders’ definitions of extremism

In the literature, Ford (2017) suggests that despite the lack of a universally agreed-upon definition of extremism, existing definitions can be categorised into three broad types, including:

1. Definitions that emphasise extremist values, describing values as extremist if they are atypical, unpopular or deviant. In this definition, extremist values are typically viewed as those furthest away from the values usually associated with liberal democracy.

2. Definitions that emphasise extremists’ lack of openness or receptiveness to the perspectives of others, highlighting the centrality of intolerance to difference.

3. Definitions which focus on the synthesis between extremism and violence, with extremist ideologies viewed as inciting adherents to either engage in violence themselves or support the violence of others.

Although many participants in this research felt that extremism is difficult to define, some were able to articulate a definition. While the definitions presented were varied and wide-ranging, they broadly mirrored the three types of definition discussed by Ford (2017). Firstly, some defined extremism as an opposition to societal and cultural norms, values and morals. This was often expressed in terms of a spectrum, with acceptable, mainstream attitudes at one end and extremism at the other.

‘All beliefs are on a spectrum, and most people fall within that spectrum at some place. When you get to the end of that spectrum, that’s when you are getting into extremism.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Secondly, some depicted extremism as a reluctance to accept the views or position of others, with extremists conceptualised as narrow-minded and intolerant of others’ beliefs.

‘Most people accept and tolerate a range of religious beliefs. An extremist will believe that their beliefs are the only beliefs that count and everybody else is against them.’ (Local authority sector participant)

‘Extremism implies a reluctance to listen, a reluctance to countenance any views that are in opposition to your own and a reluctance to accept the validity of anyone else’s position if it does not wholly or very substantially align with yours.' (Education sector participant)

Related to this was the idea that extremists often see themselves or their views as being superior to others.

‘[Extremism] is normally driven by some kind of dogma or belief that they are superior to others, that other groups are inferior, whether that be religion, race or something else.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Thirdly, some felt that an important element of extremism is that it involves views being acted on in a violent or harmful manner.

‘The threat of violence is really how we would think of it, anything where people are using their beliefs to provoke violence or carry out acts of violence.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

The definitions presented therefore spanned all three types of definition outlined by Ford (2017), with participants discussing values they would consider to be extremist, the ways in which extremists oppose values held by others, and the links between extremism and violence. However, there was no clear preference towards any one of the types of definition, and in some instances, participants mentioned elements of one, two or all three when discussing their understanding of the term.

3.2. Extremist views and behaviours

Examples of extremist views and behaviours

Although participants had difficulty articulating a clear definition of the term extremism, most could easily describe views and behaviours that they would consider to be extremist. Examples of viewpoints that participants considered to be extremist included:

• Right-wing extremism
• White supremacy
• Religious forms of extremism, including Islamist^[5] extremism
• Left-wing extremism
• Extreme forms of misogyny
• Sectarianism
• Racism

Participants also discussed various ways that these views could be acted on by extremists, such as through physical attacks on people or property, causing disruption or disorder, participation in protests or marches, hate speech, discrimination, bullying, and expressing views online (particularly on social media).

Some participants discussed the idea of a spectrum of harm in relation to extremist behaviours, with more moderate behaviours at one end and more severe, violent behaviours at the other.

‘It’s a spectrum, from holding a view that the majority of people in the country might be uncomfortable with, to vocalising that view, expressing it through public statements or on social media, to doing something about it, taking direct action in ways that harm others and encouraging others to do the same.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Boundaries of extremism

While participants could typically provide examples of views and behaviours they would consider extremist, an area of contention which arose in the interviews related to whether holding extremist beliefs can in and of itself be considered extremism, or whether the beliefs must be acted upon to constitute extremism. This initially emerged in discussions around participants’ understanding of extremism, where some described the concept in relation to particular views or beliefs (e.g., the belief that your own views are superior to others’) while others focused on actions and behaviours (e.g., that extremism involves acting on your views in violent ways).

This was subsequently explored further by presenting participants with the following three scenarios and asking them to reflect on whether they would consider each to represent an example of extremism or not:

Scenarios presented to participants

‘I’m now going to provide present you with three scenarios. I’d like you to tell me whether you would consider these to represent “extremism” or not:

1. Someone thinks it is ok to harm others for political, religious or ideological reasons, but they do not put these thoughts into action.

2. Someone thinks it is ok to harm others for political, religious or ideological reasons, and communicates this to others, for example by distributing a leaflet or putting up a poster that advocates their position.

3. Someone harms others for political, religious or ideological reasons.’

Participants’ views on these scenarios are explored in detail below.

Views without action

The first scenario describes an example of an individual holding potentially extremist views but not acting on them. Some participants felt that this could be considered extremism. For these participants, holding extremist views was often seen as the start of a journey or pathway that could, in some circumstances, lead to an individual acting on their views in ways that cause harm.

‘Someone thinks it’s ok to harm others for political, religious or ideological reasons, that for me is extremism. They’re not necessarily taking action, but they hold an extremist belief. There’s a reasonable possibility it will turn into harm.’ (Police sector participant)

These participants discussed the importance of Prevent at this stage, as they felt that support offered by Prevent can help with challenging or discrediting extremist views held by an individual before they progress into engagement in extremist behaviour.

‘I think the earlier the better. If Prevent’s about anything it’s about prevention, and we know that the more upstream that happens, the more effective it will be.’ (Education sector participant)

‘[The first example] is the area which Prevent has to work most if it’s going to be successful because it’s about identifying people that haven’t put thoughts into action [...] It’s about how you change somebody’s mind before they put those thoughts into action, how you make them question whether those thoughts are appropriate.’ (Local authority sector participant)

However, others felt that an individual cannot be considered extremist based on their views alone, and that it is only when individuals engage in behaviours that draw on their views that this constitutes extremism. These participants highlighted the importance of freedom of thought and conscience, and discussed how in a democratic society people are entitled to hold views and opinions even if these would be considered unreasonable or offensive to most.

‘I don’t think just because somebody has an unattractive view that should necessarily be called extremism. I think that would be harmful to society, it would create a sort of thought police. If they’re not actually doing anything about it, if it stays in their head, if it never goes further than that […] I wouldn’t call that extremism.’ (Police sector participant)

It was noted that if individuals were referred to Prevent solely for having views some might seem extremist the system could be overwhelmed.

‘If some sort of behaviour isn’t involved you’re often into the realms of free speech, which is something that needs to be protected. If you took everyone [into Prevent] from that first example, you’d pretty quickly overwhelm any system […] there needs to be some sort of filter.’ (Health sector participant)

Types of action

There was therefore a subset of participants who felt that extremism necessarily involves some sort of action or behaviour. However, among these participants, a further contention arose relating to the manner in which the extremist view must be acted on for this to be considered extremism. For some, an individual expressing their extremist view or communicating it to others as in the second scenario represented the point at which they could be considered extremist. These participants also felt this was the stage at which Prevent support would be appropriate.

‘If they’re talking about it with other people or if they’re posting on their social media or whatever, arguments about harming others, then I would say that is extremism and that would justify a referral.’ (Education sector participant)

For others, there had to be an element of harm – as in the third scenario – for the behaviour to be considered extremism. Participants recognised that harm could take different forms, and was not restricted to physical violence; for example, some discussed non-violent activity such as verbal abuse, online harassment or distributing leaflets denigrating particular communities were also manifestations of extremism.

‘You can be very, very disruptive and unpleasant without using physical violence […] it’s not just about violence. Protest outside an abortion clinic for example, shouting at people going in there, that is absolutely harming other people. That is extremism I think, and it’s not tolerable.’ (Police sector participant)

Some commented that where violence was involved, whether this be the use of violence, support for the use of violence or threat of violence, this constituted a specific type of extremism, ‘violent extremism’. Some were able to articulate a definition of violent extremism more clearly than they were able to define extremism in a broader sense.

‘There’s a difference between extremism and violent extremism. Extremism can be completely harmless, it’s just something that sits at the edges of what society considers acceptable. Violent extremism is not harmless at all. It’s believing in an ideology that accepts violence as a means to get to your position.’ (Other private/third sector participant)

Others felt that scenarios where violence was involved were more likely to constitute terrorism, and would therefore not be appropriate for consideration by Prevent.

‘The third [scenario], that’s terrorism, not extremism. If someone harms someone for a political, religious or ideological reason, [they would] fall under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act. That’s a key component of it.’ (Police sector participant)

Overall, there was no clear consensus among participants regarding where the boundaries of extremism lie, and many felt that all three scenarios represented an example of extremism in some form. Some also emphasised the importance of context in relation to whether each of the scenarios represented extremism, again highlighting the subjective nature of the concept. For example, participants discussed how in some circumstances harming others for political reasons would not be considered extremism, such as during a war.

‘Thinking it’s ok to harm others for political reasons. Anybody goes to war, there’s a political reason. You’ve got to take into account the context.’ (Other private/third sector participant)

3.3. Existing definitions of extremism

Views on prompted definitions

During the interviews, participants were asked for their views on three existing definitions of extremism. The first was the Australian Government’s (2022) definition of violent extremism, the second was based on the Swedish Government’s (2015) definition of violent extremism, while the third was the UK Government’s definition of extremism (Home Office, 2011).

Australian definition: a willingness to use unlawful violence, or support the use of violence by others, to promote a political, ideological or religious goal.

Swedish definition: engagement with ideologies that accept and legitimise violence as a means of realising extreme ideological opinions and ideas.

UK definition: vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.

These definitions were identified as part of a review carried out by the Scottish Government (2023d) which explored how extremism is defined in other countries. Notably the term ‘engagement with’ is not included in the original definition outlined by the Swedish Government (2015) but was included in the definition presented to participants so that its structure aligned with the other definitions.

The definitions were presented to participants later in the discussion about their understanding of extremism, so as not to influence their answers to earlier questions regarding how they themselves would define the concept.

Australian definition

In these discussions, differing perspectives again emerged on whether extremism necessarily involves an element of harm or violence. For example, while some participants felt the Australian definition was helpful, others took the view that some extremists may be willing to use or support the use of violence but not all would, and that some may instead express their views in harmful non-violent ways, such as through discrimination or harassment. These participants highlighted that a focus on violent extremism may mean that non-violent forms of extremism are overlooked.

‘I think the problem is the mention of a willingness to use unlawful violence or support the use of violence. For myself it’s not just about violence because there’s other ways of causing harm as opposed to assaulting somebody. You can be causing tension in the community, attacking IT infrastructure or something but it’s not necessarily violence as in a physical attack on somebody else.’ (Police sector participant)

Some also commented that while they would consider the use of violence to be extremist they would not consider supporting the use of violence to be extremist, so including both in the same definition was viewed as unhelpful.

‘There’s a clear difference between a willingness to use unlawful violence and support it […] A willingness to use unlawful violence is a different thing I think, because you are actually saying, “I am prepared to do it.” You have moved into extremism then, a line has been crossed. I think the two parts of that sentence are different. The willingness to use unlawful violence is clearly moving towards extremism. Supporting it in others, I’m not sure it has quite reached the threshold of extremism.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Concerns with specific terms within the Australian definition were also raised, including the term ‘unlawful violence’, with participants holding a view that there are few contexts in which violence would be considered lawful.

‘I don’t like the expression “unlawful violence”. That suggests to me that there is a lawful violence which I don’t accept.’ (Education sector participant)

The idea of a ‘goal’ was also questioned, with participants noting that extremists may not necessarily have a specific objective or aim in mind.

‘I think [the Australian definition] is slightly inaccurate, it talks about promoting a goal, I’m not sure necessarily that extremism always has a goal in mind apart from simply oppression and prejudice.’ (Education sector participant)

Some commented that they would associate the idea of a having a specific goal more closely with terrorism than extremism.

‘I think [the Australian definition] is terrorism if I’m being perfectly honest, it’s a willingness to use unlawful violence or support the use of violence by others […] you’ve got an ideology, you’re doing something about it, you’re promoting a political, ideological, or religious goal, I wouldn’t say that is extremism.’ (Police sector participant)

Swedish definition

As with the Australian definition, while some found the definition based on the Swedish definition useful, others believed that it focused too strongly on violence, and felt that not all extremist ideologies condone or encourage violence as a means of achieving their aims.

‘Again, it’s the violence aspect to it which I don’t agree with. Hate speech isn’t necessarily violence, active avoidance of things, discrimination. I don’t think it’s just about violence, it’s about activity.’ (Police sector participant)

Many participants also felt that the term ‘engagement with’, which was added to the definition for the purposes of this research, was unhelpful, because the term is too vague and broad. For example, it was suggested that it is important to engage with extreme ideologies, such as by researching them, in order to better understand them. It was proposed that if ‘engagement with’ was changed to ‘promoting’, ‘endorsing’ or ‘believing in’ then this definition could be more useful.

‘Engagement is a very difficult word […] You need to get into what the definition of engagement is because you could argue that somebody who is involved in Prevent is engaging with it. If you changed it to believing in them, promoting them, then yes, definitely.’ (Police sector participant)

UK definition

For those that felt that the previous definitions of extremism were too focused on violence, the UK definition was viewed as helpful in that it has a wider scope and could encapsulate a broader range of views and behaviours. However, many participants raised concerns with this definition. Most significantly, it was noted that the phrase ‘fundamental British values’ lacks clarity. Many commented that the values listed in the definition are not necessarily British but could be applied equally to other countries and cultures.

‘I don’t think it’s British values, I think it’s universal values. Equality for all, human rights. These are not British values; these are universal values.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

‘It’s quite a nationalistic term, British values. Are they massively different to other countries’ values? I wouldn’t agree with that. I think values cross borders to be honest.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

It was also felt that other terms in the definition are unclear, including ‘the rule of law’. Some also queried why the definition focuses on tolerance of different faiths and beliefs specifically, and noted that reference to other protected characteristics such as gender, race and sexuality would be a useful inclusion.

‘What’s missing from that is that it’s not just different faiths and beliefs. It’s other differences too, race, sexual orientation, age. There can be a lack of tolerance of things that go beyond faith and belief.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Finally, some also felt that the definition was too broad, and could risk impinging rights to free speech and protest.

‘That’s not extremism as far as I am concerned, it’s just somebody expressing their opinion. There’s nothing wrong with somebody being anti-democracy, anti-rule of law, as long as that stays within themselves and they do not act on that view on ways that cross the boundaries of what is considered acceptable.’ (Local authority sector participant)

These points are reflected in the literature around defining extremism. For example, many have criticised the term ‘fundamental British values’ for being vague and unclear (e.g., Lowe, 2017; Pilkington and Hussain, 2022; Winter et al., 2022), while Mythen et al. (2017) argue that its breadth ‘potentially criminalises legitimate political opposition and institutional critique’.

Summary

Overall, therefore, disagreements which had emerged earlier regarding the extent to which extremism involves violence were again reflected in participants’ discussion of existing definitions. Some held the view that violent action or behaviour is key to defining extremism, while others felt that this makes the definition too narrow.

More broadly, no participants felt that any of the definitions were comprehensive enough or fully aligned with their own understanding, with various concerns raised with each of the definitions. Some suggested that while the definitions individually cover important elements of extremism, none cover the entire concept.

‘All three could be said to express various aspects of extremism […] they are correct, just not necessarily complete.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Categorising types of extremism

The interviews also explored participants’ views on an approach to defining extremism recently adopted in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where broad categories of types of extremism are the focus, rather than specific ideologies:

• ‘Politically-motivated’ extremism
• ‘Religiously-motivated’ extremism
• ‘Ideologically-motivated’ extremism

The terminology in Canada was updated in 2019 (Canadian Security Intelligence Service, 2019) while the terminology in Australia and New Zealand was updated in 2021 (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, 2021; New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, 2021). In Canada, the focus is on the three categories, and no overarching definition of extremism is used. In Australia, the overarching definition of ‘violent extremism’ noted above is still used in addition to the categories. An overarching definition of violent extremism is also set out in New Zealand (New Zealand Government, 2022):

‘The justification of violence with the aim of radically changing the nature of government, religion or society. This violence is often targeted against groups seen as threatening violent extremists’ success or survival, or undermining their world view.’

Canada, Australia and New Zealand all present a similar justification for the use of this approach (Scottish Government, 2023d). In particular, it is stated that this terminology promotes a shift away from defining extremism threats with reference to any specific religious or political affiliation, in order to avoid using language that may be considered discriminatory. In doing so it aims to destigmatise the way extremism is viewed, by demonstrating that extremism can have many different motivations and is not specific to any single community or religion. This approach is also said to capture a more diverse spectrum of ideologies than other terminology is able to.

Some participants felt that the categorisation approach was a helpful way to think about different types of extremism. They commented that the categories broadly cover all the types of extremism that they are aware of, and that the ideologically-motivated category could serve as a ‘catch-all’ for types that would not necessarily be considered political or religious.

‘I think you could probably shoehorn most types of extremism into one of those [...] Especially when you include ideologically because that’s incredibly broad. That goes to the heart of an awful lot of it. It’s about people having ideas that are too far removed from what society expects. That would encompass things around sexuality, or race, or animal rights, in ways that the other two don’t. I’m struggling to think of something that wouldn’t fit into one of those three categories.’ (Local authority sector participant)

‘I think that covers it all, because ideological is kind of a catch-all for everything else that doesn’t fit political or religious isn’t it, and you can have ideologies around practically anything.’ (Police sector participant)

It was also noted that the ideologically-motivated category could be useful for covering newer types of extremism that would not necessarily be covered by existing categories, such as incels^[6].

Participants also felt that this approach could help to overcome concerns with existing language used in relation to extremism. In particular, it was noted that this approach could shift the focus from particular religious or political groups when discussing extremism.

‘Removing the labels is a really good start […] it’s one of the things that leads to the stigmatisation of certain communities. I think moving to that language is a positive step.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

‘It incorporates a range of issues without picking out particular communities or faiths as a problem. I think that’s helpful actually, to make people realise it’s not restricted to any one religion.’ (Other private/third sector participant)

Some also commented that the categories would be helpful for practitioners with a statutory obligation to fulfil the Prevent duty.

‘You might have a practitioner in a school, or senior leader in a school who has a practitioner who comes to them and says I’m concerned about a particular individual, then what that allows the staff within the school to do is to see that there are potentially clear categories that might sit under […] it just gives them a better understanding and an overview of what is meant by extremism.’ (Education sector participant)

However, other participants raised concerns about this approach to defining extremism, commenting that some ideologies may not fit neatly into the three categories. For example, sectarianism, Northern Ireland-related Terrorism (NIRT) and right-wing extremism were highlighted as often having both political and religious elements. Some also discussed how individuals referred to Prevent can have ‘mixed, unstable or unclear ideologies’^[7] (Police Scotland, 2023b), and therefore would not necessarily fit in any of the groupings.

‘My immediate thought would be that there could be ideologies that we see that could be put in either of those categories […] You can certainly get an extreme right-wing individual who is motivated by religious beliefs.’ (Police sector participant)

‘The taxonomy is probably not that useful because there are things which would probably span more than one of those, and there are similarities between them. If you look at NIRT for example, where’s that? Is that religious? Political? Ideological? It could be all three of those, actually.’ (Education sector participant)

It was felt that operationalising the three categories may present difficulties if an individuals’ or groups’ ideology does not fit neatly within one.

‘I mean they’re a helpful start but they miss a lot. And I think they could allow a lot of people to fall through the gaps because I don’t think it’s broad enough to cover all the potential issues.’ (Education sector participant)

Participants felt that, if this approach were to be adopted, it would be important to include a caveat that the categories are not mutually exclusive, and that some individuals’ or groups’ viewpoints may span multiple groups.

‘I don’t think it’s unhelpful as long as people are sensible and aren’t too blinded by putting someone in a particular category, to the detriment of really assessing what the underlying cause is. It could be used as an initial triage almost, those three categories seem like a sensible way of doing that, while acknowledging that it can be complex.’ (Health sector participant)

‘There’s always a risk when you put headers and try fit people into a neat box. Sometimes it’s not as clear as that and there will be crossovers. So I think it’s a good reference point if it’s not too prescriptive.’ (Prisons sector participant)

More broadly, some participants believed that in the context of Prevent, too much focus on definitions or categories was unhelpful, and that the emphasis should instead be on setting out behaviours and vulnerabilities that practitioners should look out for to improve understanding of when a referral may be appropriate.

‘I think they could be useful for administrative purposes but the important thing is that we are talking about behaviours. What the ideology is, it’s less important than the behaviour […] it doesn’t really matter if they are motivated by political motivations, ideological motivations or religious, it’s the behaviour that matters.’ (Local authority sector participant)

‘In terms of the frontline of dealing with the community, the emphasis should be on the causes, identifying vulnerabilities, supporting people to overcome those vulnerabilities, so that they’re less likely to act out.’ (Local authority sector participant)

3.4. Hate crime, sectarianism, terrorism and extremism

Spectrum of views

In the literature, academics have highlighted similarities between hate crime, sectarianism, extremism and terrorism. It has been noted that all of these concepts can have political, religious or social motivations; may involve acts of violence; and can include the targeting of individuals based on their perceived group membership (Baker, 2018; Mills et al., 2015). Knight and Keatley (2020) discuss how the terms extremism and terrorism in particular are often used interchangeably.

During the interviews, participants were asked about their views on the links between extremism, hate crime, sectarianism and terrorism. Many felt that there is a high degree of overlap between the concepts, and noted that they are difficult to disentangle. A key theme that emerged was the idea of a spectrum or continuum between hate crime, extremism and terrorism in particular, with many feeling that perpetrators of hate crime could progress to more extreme forms of thinking and even terrorism without appropriate intervention, such as the support offered by Prevent.

‘I think the best way to describe it is like a continuum, it’s like a road or river […] you have hate crime which could progress to having more extreme views, and it could manifest into terrorism, it’s very much a path. With the right education and intervention at the earliest possible stage you mitigate the risk.’ (Police sector participant)

These participants also discussed how not all hate crime will necessarily progress to extremism, and that not all extremism will necessarily progress to terrorism. They felt that the challenge is to identify that which has the potential to escalate, so that the risk can be reduced. However, other participants felt that there is not necessarily a clear progression between hate crime, extremism and terrorism, and that the pathways between them may not always be linear.

‘There is a distinction, but the lines are probably blurred from one into the other [...] I don’t think it’s a continuum, so I don’t think you become an extremist and then a terrorist, I think you can jump between both.’ (Police sector participant)

‘What’s happened over the years is this idea of a conveyor belt of somebody moving from being kind of, you know, getting more and more religious and becoming an extremist then becoming a terrorist. That’s been widely debunked.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Many emphasised how all incidents of terrorism are extreme, but not all extremists will commit terrorist acts.

‘Terrorism is probably one of the ways in which extremism manifests itself, but extremism wouldn’t necessarily always result in acts of terrorism.’ (Education sector participant)

‘[Extremism] doesn’t necessarily translate to terrorism. There are examples of people who hold views which may not be compatible with others’, does that lead to violence, not always. Yes, you will find people who have extreme views who may flow over to the terrorism side but is it a given, no. So I’ll always say that it’s blurry [...] every terrorist is an extremist but not every extremist is a terrorist.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Drawing distinctions

Hate crime

While many participants commented on there being blurred lines between hate crime, sectarianism, terrorism and extremism, some were able to draw distinctions between the concepts. In relation to hate crime, participants discussed how in some cases such behaviour could be motivated by extremist beliefs or attitudes, with some feeling that an individual carrying out a hate crime could be viewed as a sign that they may be susceptible to extremist narratives.

‘[Hate crime and extremism are] difficult to disentangle. I think someone carrying out a hate crime could certainly be an indication or a kind of warning sign that someone does hold an extreme belief.’ (Police sector participant)

‘I think most hate crimes are motivated by some version of an extremist way of thinking.’ (Faith and belief sector participant)

However, participants felt that more commonly, hate crime will be motivated by a particular bias or prejudice held by an individual towards another group in society, which, though deplorable, is not necessarily extremist.

‘There’s a difference. Hate crime I would think comes from prejudice and stereotypes. It’s perpetrated by individuals with a bias against minorities [...] and a lot of it is driven by people who haven’t had experiences of other groups.’ (Other private/third sector participant)

Participants also discussed how extremists typically have deep-seated belief systems or ideologies that are used to justify their views and actions, which a perpetrator of a hate crime may not necessarily hold.

‘People can be hateful without having a deep-seated ideology or extreme belief. Extremism is a step beyond having a hateful mindset. It impacts the way they lead their life, it’s all-encompassing. It carries weight for that person on the decisions they make, the social interactions they have. It’s beyond having a prejudice, it’s completely absorbing yourself in that belief system.’ (Police sector participant)

Some also discussed how hate crime is more likely to result from an escalation of an existing conflict than extremism, for example, a neighbourly dispute that culminates in the use of derogatory racial epithets.

‘A lot of hate crime comes from heat of the moment, offhand comments [...] not to diminish the victim’s experience, which is really important, but you know is that motivated by extremism, or just ignorance and an inability to control yourself.’ (Police sector participant)

Finally, some felt that extremism involves targeting a whole group or section of society, whereas hate crime can be targeted more at individuals.

‘Hate crime can often be a personal attack on someone because they’re perceived to belong to a group, they hold a characteristic. Extremism is a stage further, not just targeting the person, it’d be targeting a [place of worship], for example. There’s a fine line I think, but extremism more targets the group itself.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Terrorism

Participants could point to several features of terrorism which make it distinct from extremism. These firstly relate to its underlying motive. Participants felt that terrorism is often aimed at influencing and affecting government actions and policies, but that this is not a necessary element of extremism.

‘For me, there’s something around the [terrorist] act trying to send a message, beyond the rage of the individual involved. It’s a desire for change, to influence government.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Participants also felt that the impact of terrorist activity usually differs to that of extremist behaviour. They discussed how terrorism often involves the use of indiscriminate violence directed at the population at large, with the victims usually unknown to the perpetrator. Due to its indiscriminate nature terrorism can have a wide effect, in that it can instil fear and cause psychological harm to the population as a whole. In contrast, participants felt that extremist behaviour is often targeted at a particular group or section of society and is therefore likely to impact most on the immediate victim and their community or peers.

‘Extremism can be more individual [...] effectively it might be striking terror into one person or a group of people but you’re not necessarily trying to put fear into society as a whole. There’s a collective and indiscriminate aspect to terrorism which is “I want everybody to feel terrified”.’ (Education sector participant)

‘What I take as the definition of terrorism is that it is deliberately directed against a civilian population. There’s direct action, and that action is designed to frighten and terrorise the community.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Participants also highlighted how the nature of terrorist activity and extremist activity can differ. It was felt that terrorism is typically large-scale and involves planning and coordination, while extremism is not always goal oriented.

‘Someone can be sharing their extreme views and even promoting them but for me, [terrorism is] once they’re mobilising and have a plan, they’re planning to act on that, to cause physical hurt or damage to people or infrastructures to promote their ideology.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Finally, participants also felt that terrorism always involves an element of physical violence, but that while extremism can involve violence, it can also be expressed in non-violent ways.

‘Terrorism, that would involve violence of some sort. Extremism doesn’t necessarily do that. Terrorism is probably the physical manifestation of extremism.’ (Health sector participant)

‘If you’re carrying out attacks I think that’s what it would come down to really, it’s actually carrying out acts of violence. It comes down to that kind of physical attack as opposed to just holding extremist views.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Sectarianism

Many participants were unable to draw a distinction between extremism and sectarianism. These participants felt that sectarianism represents a form of extremism as it involves hatred and, in some cases, harm towards others on the basis of religious and political differences. Highlighting intra-Christian sectarianism in particular, these participants held a view that in Scotland, this form of sectarianism is often not viewed as extremism because it is deeply embedded in elements of Scottish culture, and is therefore normalised and tolerated. However, they felt that it is equally harmful as other types of extremism.

‘[Extremism and sectarianism] are exactly the same thing, just a different word. It’s the same form of prejudice coming through that comes through from extremism and it shouldn’t be tolerated, but it is [...] It causes the same outcome, unrest and harm to others.’ (Education sector participant)

‘[Sectarianism is] absolutely extremism. Hatred on the basis of nationality or religion is 100% extremism. It’s played down, but it’s a major problem. It’s extremism, without a shadow of a doubt.’ (Police sector participant)

Those involved in Prevent delivery in Scotland commented that this is reflected in the low number of referrals to Prevent that relate to intra-Christian sectarianism. Since 2017/18 most referrals to Prevent in Scotland have related to right-wing extremism or mixed, unstable or unclear ideologies (Police Scotland, 2023b).

‘I think in Prevent we don’t get many referrals because people just accept it. If you saw somebody you know saying something which might sound extreme but it was related to sectarianism, you would just think “well that’s what they all say, that’s what happens, isn’t it”.’ (Government participant)

‘I do wonder why we have so few referrals about sectarianism in Scotland. Sectarianism is probably underreported, but it’s within that extremism umbrella, definitely.’ (Police sector participant)

However, others felt that sectarianism should not be considered as a type of extremism because the behaviours often associated with sectarianism are less severe or harmful than typical expressions of extremism. For example, some participants felt that in Scotland, sectarianism is more likely to involve name calling or singing offensive songs than it is to involve violence, and questioned the extent to which sectarianism is characterised by genuine hatred, or a clear political objective.

‘I see them as different. Is there a desire to change society, influence government, cause fear to the public, I’d argue probably not. I think it’s much more direct in that one party directs disdain to the other and then that’s reciprocated. It’s become a little bit of an inherited cultural belief system for us. I don’t want to trivialise it but I don’t think it’s as bad as what extremism is.’ (Police sector participant)

‘I think there’s differences between sectarianism and extremism because all sectarian behaviour is not extreme. Name calling is not nice but it’s not extremism. Casual use of the word Hun, Tim, Fenian, it’s not… there’s malice and ill-will there but there’s not necessarily hate.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Linked to the view that sectarianism is rarely linked with political objectives, some participants observed that sectarianism rarely translates into terrorism, meaning that it should be treated differently to extremism.

‘The escalation of sectarianism into serious, what we would call terrorist activity, doesn’t happen in Scotland. It tends to just be [football teams] kicking off, but it doesn’t end up in extreme violence and terrorism. The CT [counter-terrorism] risk isn’t actually there.’ (Other private/third sector participant)

‘Is sectarianism the same level as extremism? I’m not seeing the same evidence that it is coordinated really, to the level that far-right extremism, religiously motivated, Islamic-motivated extremism is. Sectarianism is a lot more low-level stuff. Not that it makes it alright for the victims of it. It’s still traumatic, it’s still problematic.’ (Faith and belief organisation participant)

Some participants discussed the importance of context when considering whether sectarianism should be considered extremism. These participants felt that some manifestations of sectarianism can be considered extremist, particularly those that involve violence. However, participants commented that they would not necessarily consider all behaviours associated with sectarianism to be extremist. Some of these participants considered a line to be crossed when the sectarianism involved an element of harm.

‘When they promote violence and they call for violence, whether online or at matches [...] it can easily tip into what you would classify as extremism.’ (Education sector participant)

‘Again it’s on that spectrum of whether your sectarian views are something that turns into direct action. Direct action might be giving money to them or encouraging violence [...] it doesn’t have to be going out and carrying a bomb around. There are definitely opportunities for sectarianism to become more extreme, and to turn into terrorism.’ (Local authority sector participant)

3.5. Summary

Participants found extremism challenging to define, and had varied understandings of the concept. Many were able to provide examples of what they would consider to be extremist beliefs and actions, but there were differing views regarding whether the holding of such beliefs can in and of itself be considered extremism or whether these beliefs have to be acted upon to be considered extremism. There were also different views regarding whether extremism has to involve the use or threat of violence. While some felt that it does, others felt that non-violent expressions of extremism are equally important.

There was some support for use of the ‘politically-motivated’, ‘ideologically-motivated’ and ‘religiously-motivated’ categories of extremism, though it was felt that a caveat that the categories are not mutually exclusive would be needed if they were to be operationalised within Prevent.

Participants felt that there were strong links between extremism and hate crime and terrorism, concepts which were often discussed in terms of a spectrum. Views differed regarding whether sectarianism should be considered as a type of extremism or a distinct phenomenon, with some feeling that it is less harmful than typical manifestations of other forms extremism.

A key thread through all discussions was the subjective nature of extremism, and that understanding the context from which extremism emerges is key to defining it.