Keeping safe from extremism

Who defines "extremism" or "radicalisation" ?

Currently some "extreme" or "radical" positions are promoted by socially approved campaigners.

The only thing here that should be criminal is physical harm (or inciting others to commit harm).

In a genuinely free society, "Hate" crime is an abomination - as it is defined by whoever reports something they disapprove of.

"Hate crime" statistics are nonsense - as they are based on unsubstantiated "reports".

Since when did mind-reading become "evidence" of a crime ???

The criminals who stab people should be banged up - not people who hurt feelings on the internet.

And as for Islamic fundamentalist extremism it has to be understood in its specificity, and distinguished from people's geopolitical views and the Muslim religion in general. This kind of extremism is extremist not for its abstract political or religious views and generational affiliations with other countries, but for wanting to wage war against random people in Britain, who are considered somehow responsible for what has been happening in the Middle East. We can't be suspicious of all Muslim people because of a tiny minority that has such crazy and murderous views, or consider all Muslims responsible for that minority. Otherwise we are creating a paranoid and discriminatory society, and that's really not good.

Also I agree with the comments above that 'extremism' is a very lose term that lumps very different things together. Some people think it is extremist to have views about wars that do not match Britain's interests. And others think it is extremist to have political views that are critical of our current democracy. It depends what the criticism is followed by. If people want to replace democracy with fascism, a police state, and mass expulsion of populations or mass murder then yes they are extremist. Those people should be challenged and not be allowed to promote their hateful views (even though we now have one of those people in the US presidency!) Those are the same kind of people who tell people on buses to 'go back to their own country' or perpetrate even more violent attacks. But criticism of current affairs in itself is not extremist as long as it doesn't group populations and people as 'good' and 'bad' and doesn't promote violence and harm against entire communities.

Londoners have above all a responsibility to educate themselves and others about history and geopolitical issues, and develop a nuanced understanding of the world and people from different places, without taking a polarised position, and being able to see contradictions and forms of violence on all sides, while being aware of imperialist hierarchies and Britain's role in them. There are no 'good' and 'bad' people or religions and community groups. But there are power relations and we cannot allow to perpetuate the oppression and discrimination against those who are 'different' (esp from non-European backgrounds).

In answer to the London Talk question: 

Do you think extremism and radicalisation is something that can be prevented? Or should this simply be policed?

Is prevention of the issue as important as policing the issue?

Policing is more of a 'quick fix', prevention is key because it nips it in the bud before it happens. Education in schools (from an early age), peace talks with communities in UK and abroad. 

Prejudice is often the result of frustration, jealousy and resentment (sometimes boredom too). The key is to focus on investing properly in our police and NHS. If these institutions worked more efficiently society on the whole would be healthier, safer (and happier).

Happy people don't tend to commit terrorist attacks or hate crimes do they?

As H. G. Wells said, "Our true nationality is Mankind".