Social media as a breeding ground for hate: case studies on the far-right and Islamic extremism

MASTER THESIS to obtain the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree

in Digital Communication Leadership (DCLead) of Faculty of Cultural and Social Sciences Paris Lodron University of Salzburg and Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences and Solvay Business School Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Submitted by ZAHAID REHMAN s1048021 [email protected] Pakistan

Primary supervisor: Jan Loisen, VUB Secondary Supervisor: Josef Trappel, PLUS

Department of Communication Studies

Salzburg, 31.07.2019

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Executive Summary ...... 4 Chapter 2: Introduction ...... 5 Chapter 3: Theoretical framework ...... 8 Defining hate speech ...... 8 Theoretical Perspective ...... 8 Legal Perspective ...... 9 Beyond the physical – emotional and mental effects of hate speech and alienation...... 10 Defining the far-right and extremism ...... 11 Far right and Islamic extremism ...... 11 Radicalisation ...... 13 Separating thought and action – Separating groupthink from individual perspectives ...... 14 Access/Digital Divide ...... 14 Far-right groups and access to the Internet ...... 16 Affordances ...... 17 Extremist affordances on the Internet ...... 18 Learning/information gathering ...... 18 Financial affordances ...... 19 Recruitment ...... 19 Radicalisation and sowing division ...... 19 The impact of the Internet on narrative-building and radicalisation ...... 21 Hate speech and extremism on the Internet ...... 22 Filter bubbles and hiding hate speech online ...... 24 Social Media as Gatekeepers ...... 25 Countermeasures/policing hate speech ...... 26 So who polices? ...... 28 Unilateral Regulation ...... 29 Multilateral Regulation...... 30 Technological Regulation...... 30 Why platforms must take a greater role ...... 31 Chapter 4: Methodology ...... 34 Twitter ...... 38 YouTube ...... 38 Case 1 Khadim Rizvi’s hate speech following the Asia Bibi acquittal ...... 39 Case 2 Britain’s Islamophobia Problem ...... 40 The parameters for detecting hate speech ...... 41 Chapter 5: Case Studies...... 43 Case 1: Khadim Rizvi’s hate speech following the Asia Bibi acquittal ...... 43 Twitter ...... 44 YouTube ...... 49 Summary ...... 53 Case 2: Britain’s Islamophobia Problem ...... 54 Twitter ...... 55 YouTube ...... 58 Summary ...... 62 Chapter 6: Conclusion ...... 63 Bibliography ...... 66 Appendix ...... 71

Chapter 1: Executive Summary

The proliferation of hate speech on the Internet is one of the more exigent problems that has come about as a direct result of the increasing popularity of social media. Where confrontational ideologies once had a limited audience due to their inability to feature on mainstream media such as television, social media websites facilitate the use of content creation and dissemination for individual users, making it easy for those that want to get their voices heard. Far-right perspectives from both white nationalist groups and Islamic extremists are available on social media platforms, often hate speech disguised as one exercising their right to free speech. This study looked to dissect these narratives in order to understand exactly how hate speech results in greater alienation amongst the groups targeted and even possible instances of violence as a result. Additionally, it looked at the ability of platforms to counter this hate on their websites; literature included within this study also identified the responsibility of platforms, as the new gatekeepers of information, and due to their ability to reap the advantages of a two-sided market with limited liability. The research used an ethnographic case study approach to look at hate speech in both Pakistan and the United Kingdom and follow the narratives of three individuals, Khadim Hussain Rizvi from Pakistan and Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson from the UK. All three are well-known personalities in the countries they operate in and have been categorised by mainstream media as proponents of hate speech. Both cases drew data from twitter in the form of tweets from verified accounts, and speeches and interviews from YouTube to attempt to understand their narrative, categorise whether it falls into the ambit of hate speech and deconstruct it to identify why they say the things to do. The findings showed that all three actors use hate speech as a means to divide social groups, alienating the groups they spew hate against as a means to increase their support base and increase intolerance for those they categorise as deserving of the hate they perpetrate. The narrative of both far-right white nationalists and Islamic extremists have stark similarities, in which they use insults as a means to dehumanise, point to injustices done against them by the out group, and identify their right to gain supremacy over those that they advocate against. The existence of this narrative by well-known far-right individuals tells us that social media websites have failed to stem the rise of hate speech on their platforms; if well-known individuals cannot be kept in check, there is no telling just how much vitriol slips undetected on these platforms.

Chapter 2: Introduction

The increasing popularity of social media platforms over the course of the past twenty years has led to a new dimension of associated problems, a significant one being the rise of hate speech on both the internet in general and more specifically social media platforms such as Facebook, twitter and YouTube. Both far-right proponents of predominantly white Christian backgrounds and Islamic extremists use social media platforms as a means of disseminating their narrative of hate and proliferate divisive content, and use this to illicit greater support among sympathisers and those that espouse a similar line of belief. While states guarantee protection from hate speech through laws passed and implemented, and social media platforms have provisions of removal of hate content according to their terms and conditions, the persistence of such narratives to stay online despite state-level action and removals by platforms implies that there is a failure by platforms to adequately address this problem on their websites. The rise of far-right movements across the world have once again given rise to the old debate regarding freedoms on the internet and the blurred lines between hate speech and exercising one’s freedom of expression. Extremist content and online radicalisation have been an exigent problem for the international community ever since the war on terror began in 2001, but the new threat of hate speech against immigrants has brought the other end of the spectrum – hatred against Muslims – to the fore. Extremism has already been a problem long before the refugee crisis, and the existence of terrorist groups still planning and looking to execute attacks all over the world tells us that countering extremist propaganda must be prioritised. In Europe, with the influx of refugees this problem is getting more exacerbated by the day. Countries such as Hungary, that were seen as more right-wing and less likely to welcome refugees with open arms, already had a tolerance problem, but now, even countries like Germany and the United Kingdom which opened their doors to a vast number of refugees and were looking for methods to integrate an entire new populace are also reacting to the state’s policy regarding openness. Britain’s Brexit vote, the rise of Boris Johnson to the seat of Prime Minister and the popularity of far-right proponents of hate is an indication of a shifting trend in both politics and discourse online in the UK. The state of affairs in the UK and the rest of Europe tells us that there is a problem; social divides are becoming more and more pronounced and the only two ways to counter this are to send back all the refugees or integrate them. The first option is not one that should be considered, and in the efforts to integrate, the first step should be to ensure that rising hate speech is curbed – on digital platforms because of the scale of access; an increasing number of internet users means that there is a greater audience for online propaganda and hate speech than ever before. The permeation of hate speech online is one of the fundamental problems of the digital age. It is a challenge for governments, technology companies (platforms) and individual users to both counter content centred on hate, but also ensure that the narrative is not espoused by individuals that have been misled. This paper attempted to chart the rise of hate content on the internet of two types; ultra-right rhetoric centred on the ‘Islam problem’ and Islamic extremist content online. An ethnographic case study approach formed the methodological framework for this research; to assess whether the internet is a breeding ground for hate speech and extremism and examine the narratives that far-right ideologies across the world disseminate to gain more support. Empirical data was extracted from two social media platforms, twitter and YouTube to answer one research question divided into two parts; what makes social media a suitable breeding ground for the prevalence of hate speech online? How do known perpetrators of hate speech operate on social media platforms to further their narrative? How well are platforms dealing with the responsibility to take hate content off their websites? The study was spread out over two states, Pakistan and the United Kingdom and looked at notable hate speech actors in both and their content on social media platforms to determine the extent of hate speech, the types of narratives being put forth and whether social media platforms have done enough to contain the spread of such content. Data from twitter was extracted from personal accounts of two individuals, one from each country; Khadim Hussain Rizvi, one of the leaders of the Tehreek-i-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) a far-right Islamic political party in Paksitan and Katie Hopkins, a media personality in Britain with a large following and a penchant for making controversial statements. Data extraction on YouTube entailed a search for hateful speeches and interviews put forth by the individuals identified above, alongside another one for the UK, prominent far-right leader Tommy Robinson, known for founding the English Defence League, PEGIDA UK and his involvement with other far-right anti-Islam organisations in the country. Before dealing with the content itself however, laying the theoretical groundwork for a study such as this was important, which why this research attempted to first establish two important questions; what hate speech really is and what it means to be far-right or an Islamic extremist. Following this, fundamental issues about how far-right ideologies navigate on the Internet and mitigate problems such as digital divide and questions of access to achieve their end were discussed. What these ends are is also another issue that needed to be addressed, and for this, the affordances extremists find on both the Internet and on social media websites was elaborated on, to assess the real reason for the proliferation of hate content online. Recruitment, radicalisation and online learning are important affordances and motivation for proliferating hate content, and the theoretical ideas surrounding affordances were analysed. How hate speech exists on the Internet, with filter bubbles and eroding gatekeeping functions of the media through the rise of social media were also discussed. Finally, the question of policing the Internet, and who is best suited to removing hateful content online was addressed, to try and assess where the blame falls if hate speech continues to proliferate online.

Chapter 3: Theoretical framework

Defining hate speech

Theoretical Perspective

The idea of language being used for harm is one that has to be deconstructed at length to truly understand the damaging effect of hate speech on the individuals targeted. Without delving too deeply into the murky philosophical waters that one is naturally exposed to as a result of attempting to analyse the ability of linguistics to cause real harm; put simply, one’s identity is formed as a direct result of the linguistic identifiers we use in delineating a sound to an object or individual as their calling card (name) (Butler, 1997). But words are not only denoting an individuality with which we identify. As Butler (1997, p. 02) points out, “to be called a name is one of the first forms of linguistic injury that one learns.” This refers of the ability of words to wound, to cause pain, even if it is not physical distress that we are referring to. According to Delgado and Stefancic (2014), the increase in Internet usage has brought about an increase in instances of criminal activity – a rise in identity theft, credit card fraud, revenge porn, threats and other financial scams can be observed ever since the Internet was brought into everyday use for more and more users. All of the above examples (and more) can be fit into the broader criteria of anti-social behaviour, of which hate speech is also a part (Delgado & Stefancic, 2014). In Delgado and Stefancic’s (2014, p. 320) perspective then, anti-social behaviour is “behaviour that decreases trust, weakens social bonds, or erodes quality of life.” This criterion makes it simple to fit hate speech into, for it falls into all three categories; widening social groups through content that exacerbates divides will weaken social bonds and inevitably erode the quality of life for at least one group; either the target group or even those that would count themselves in the same social group as the perpetrators of the hate speech. Identifying hate speech is not easy, but before identification one must look to understand what the term actually means. This exercise will be carried out to assess social media as a breeding ground for hate speech; if there is no clarity on what hate speech really is, researching its existence in specific instances might become more difficult. Experts and scholars alike have put forward different explanations for what hate speech means. According to Gagliardone, Gal, Alves and Martinez (2015, p. 07), “Multilateral treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) have sought to define its contours. Multi-stakeholder processes (e.g. the Rabat Plan of Action) have been initiated to bring greater clarity and suggest mechanisms to identify hateful messages. And yet, hate speech continues largely to be used in everyday discourse as a generic term, mixing concrete threats to individuals’ and groups’ security with cases in which people may be simply venting their anger against authority.” The study goes on to add that social media platforms have now formed their own definitions of the idea, in attempts to bind the users to complying to certain limitations to their expression online. With so many competing stakeholders forming their own versions of the definition in isolation, it is hard to reach one universal definition (Gagliardone et al., 2015). This all but confirms that setting a definition for hate speech will prove to be challenging. The daily use of the word has only created misunderstanding for what the term actually means. The fact that “How do you define hate speech?” is one of the first questions one is asked when discussing the issue, it is safe to assume that establishing the meaning of the term is imperative in order to properly analyse the subject, for clarity’s sake. Various scopes of research can determine the nature of the definition as can the stakeholders involved in formulating it. Attempting to find a definition through the legal perspective will perhaps be helpful in establishing the meaning of hate speech, as any study on the issue works in tandem with the attempts of local authorities to counter it.

Legal Perspective

Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) declares, “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to hatred, discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law” (Walker, 1994). Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, pertaining to freedom of speech states, “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary” (Council of Europe, 1953). The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) adds another dimension to this already convoluted equation1. According to their stance on hate speech, the OSCE states that states often misconstrue anti-state expression as hate speech or extremism, however, the OSCE Representative on the freedom of the media fights against “deliberate and violent hate speech in the media”, presumably targeted against individual or groups. The above-mentioned articles and definitions of hate speech illustrate that individuals do have a right to express themselves freely, but only if this right is not exercised to subvert others by using hate against specific groups as a targeted assault.

Beyond the physical – emotional and mental effects of hate speech and alienation

Framing the debate in the US context helps in understanding the distinction between free speech/expression and hate speech; the US government’s fierce protection of the first amendment in the constitution which relates to the freedom of speech might help in understanding just how hate speech can be detrimental to those on the receiving end. Finding a definition of the term ‘hate speech’ is problematic because in formulating a definition of speech that is restricted due to the detrimental effects it might have on others, one would be “crafting unspoken rules regarding discourse” (Becker, Byers, & Jipson, 2000). Nevertheless, even with the right to free speech ruthlessly protected under the US constitution, hatred for ethnic, racial or religious reasons is an exception to the rule, as is holocaust denial. While the incitement to violence covers physical injury received as a result of hate speech, emotional or psychological trauma as a result of division in one’s country of inhabitancy is an impact that is often ignored in many studies conducted previously. Hate speech can range from verbal insults to graphic depiction of violence (Oksanen et al., 2018). As will be explained at later stage when discussing radicalism, it is important to recognise that one individual’s extreme views heading in a more radical direction will only result in divisions being created around them. Seeing the world from the perspective of a singular

1 The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Hate Speech. Retrieved September 10, 2018. https://www.osce.org/representative-on-freedom-of-media/106289 group, often while attaching a hierarchy or order of preference to each group can result in alienation for those in minority, leading to a more troubled existence (Awan, 2016). There is a dearth of research on the subject of public perception on the issues of cybercrime such as terrorism and hate speech (Wykes & Harcus, 2010). What hate speech does to one’s feeling of being secure in their surroundings is something that is missed unless a violent attack with an actual victim takes place. Mill’s (1869) harm principle, his only limitation to liberties and freedoms in his seminal work, On Liberty, states that power (can be interpreted as the state’s legitimate use of force or coercion) can only be applied on a member of society if this is done to prevent harm to others (Mill, 1869). Cammaerts (2009) recognises that Mill, with his libertarian perspective meant it more in terms of individual harm than to a social group, but still uses this principle and Rousseau’s theory on the social contract (1762/1977) to argue for controlling the spread of hate speech online (Rousseau, 1762/1977; Cammaerts, 2009). This all but affirms that mental or emotional “distress” is a harm associated to hate speech, and hence is not protected under the freedom of speech (Williams, 2002). For instance, calling for deportation of various ethnic groups or using slurs against them has been provided for by the European Commission on Human Rights as a possible offence if the states choose to see it as such (Farrior, 1996). This research will not attempt to identify the distinct forms of hate speech, rather it will study them as a whole and attempt to chart various types of rhetoric and what purpose they are used for by far-right groups on social media platforms.

Defining the far-right and extremism

Far right and Islamic extremism

Burris et. al. (2000) identified eight distinct categories of a far-right website network in the US, from Holocaust Revisionists, Christian Identity Theology, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Foreign (non-US) Nationalists, Racist Skinheads, to Music and Books/Merchandise (Burris, Smith, & Strahm, 2000). Gerstenfeld et. al. (2003) argue along similar lines, adding the Klu Klux Klan and Militia categories as two other separate ones for website networks. However, these broad categories can also be divided into further sub- groups, which might or might not have direct contact with one another, which is why assuming that all of them behave the same way or are using the Internet as a tool to link with one another may be a generalisation (Gerstenfeld, Grant, & Chiang, 2003). This argument goes against the notion of looking to lump all far-right groups together in one category because the of the differences among them. Given that many studies are dealing with the far-right or Islamic extremism in isolation, defining the parameters for one does not necessarily imply an inclusion of the other into the same set of parameters. However, one common ground that Carter (2018) found is that of ideology uniting the entire group – as mentioned above. Another was that of these groups being “right-wing” even though agreeing to a definition of what it means to be on the ‘right’ of the political spectrum is another added conundrum. Carter (2018) used equality as a measure of the right – with the left always looking for egalitarian policies and the right being more unequal – would help in establishing what it means to be right-wing. The “far” right then, would imply that that these groups would want supremacy of their community, race, religion or ethnicity over the others that exist in the same place (Carter, 2018). Defining the far-right, Islamic extremism and extremism as a whole or radicalism will help in establishing the dimensions within which this research will operate. This issue of ideological similarity of far-right groups and Islamic extremists is central to the research as the two cases developed at a later stage will test this question; are the narratives put forth by both the far-right and Islamic extremists centred on similar lines of argument? One study recommends keeping the definition of the far-right as broad as possible, “as the actions of social actors on the Internet poses a challenge to traditional labels used to categorise social and political phenomena” (Crosset, Tanner, & Campana, 2019, p. 940). They define the far-right as possessing three distinct features; an extreme form of nationalism – or identity – often critical of concepts such as pluralism and democracy; rejecting the “other” and finding arguments to assert one’s own superiority; and providing a call to action to assert their perspective on the state as a whole (Crosset, Tanner, & Campana, 2019). These features, with the exception of nationalism – which can be replaced with an equally extreme form of ideology – in many cases can be extended to the Islamic extremist movement across the world as well; rejecting the democratic system in favour of Shariah law, rejecting the “infidels” and viewing them as the enemy alongside providing a call to arms for their support; the far-right movement and Islamic extremism are not wholly different in their ideological discourse. These similarities are important, because the content of the hate speech of both movements while different, is grounded on the same logical foundations. Thus, the question of identity is similar in both movements, both are critical of democratic concepts and similarly look to assert their own superiority – based on either religion or race depending on which one of the movements is under question – and provide a reason for mobilisation for their social group.

Radicalisation

Discussion on radicalisation is important when dealing with the narrative of hate speech on social media platforms; one of the affordances (dealt with at a later stage) the perpetrators of hate speech find on social media is a means to increase their follower base. One of the major theories on extremism or radicalism is a single dimension model and is called the “conveyor belt theory” on terrorism. The model is simplistic in its nature and paints a cause and effect relationship between radical thought and action – an increase in the first is likely to lead to an increase in the other as a result (Holt, Freilich, Chermak, & McCauley, 2015). Political mobilisation is one dimensional, and on the legal side of the spectrum can be considered ‘activism’ while on the illegal side can be seen as radicalism; both used as a means to bring about political change (Kerodal, Freilich, & Chermak, 2016). There are five major refutations to this model, one of them being that individuals that engage in acts of violence without consuming this extremist content do not fit into this spectrum. Secondly, violent acts committed due to personal grievances, out of love, for reasons of kinship or in attempts to increase one’s status imply that radical thought is not necessarily a prerequisite to membership in radical groups, or even in engaging in radical crime. Beyond this it is also important to understand that radical thought exists in much larger numbers compared to instances of violent action, or even terrorists. This model identifies all those that have extremist or radical ideas as terrorists, which is inherently flawed. It is also important to remember that radicalisation on the Internet relies more on sloganeering and emotive content than actual ideological discussion, meaning that those radicalised might not do so for ideological reasons only. Lastly, research conducted on former terrorists that are no longer engaged in perpetrating violent crime has revealed that former terrorists are much more willing to forgo violent action, but radical thought is harder to give up – this points to a fundamental difference between actions and ideas as well (Holt, Freilich, Chermak, & McCauley, 2015). Other studies (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2009) have also found that separating radicalism and activism into two distinct aspects of political mobilisation is more valuable. ‘Extreme’ views on their own do not translate into violent and illegal political action, rather, it is the type of perspectives held on certain issues that define one’s propensity to commit acts of violence. However, obviously not all beliefs or views held will lead to violent action. For instance, one’s perspective on important issues such as anti-gun laws or equal rights according to race, class and gender will be more indicative of the tendency to commit violence rather than say the belief that the government’s tax laws are problematic (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2009). This tells us that xenophobic perspectives are more likely to lead to violence than say, ideas centred on tolerance.

Separating thought and action – Separating groupthink from individual perspectives

Holt et al. (2015) recommended separating radicalisation of action from radicalisation of thought and while their study dealt with radical content used as a motivator for radical action, this research does not attempt to draw that link; it will merely look to study content released by identified individuals and attempt to establish the motivations of the perpetrators, instead of the audience. To link that to what is been said above it simply means that this research will study radical thought and ideas instead of action, as has been the case with many other studies in this field of research. The effect of these narratives on actual instances of hate crime in the real world is hard to predict and even prove at times. Individual dispositions also play an important part in determining the extent of radicalisation or extremism – treating each case as a unique one is important because of all the individualistic variables that make a person who they are (Holt & Bolden, 2014). Behavioural models link an individual’s intentions and actions, positing that the former leads to the latter; a direct causation (Foltz, 2004). Greater focus will be given to the intentions of the perpetrators of hate speech, whether they achieve their goal of greater division or radicalisation (or any other objective discovered through this study) is not relevant.

Access/Digital Divide

Access to the Internet is a fundamental question when the focus of the research is understanding the use of the Internet and its affordances by a specific individual or group. Assessing cross-national Internet (and technology) use can help in understanding that state policies alongside other socio-political factors determine the extent of digital divide in a country (Guillen & Suarez, 2005). Pre-existing digital divides of literacy, access and empowerment (Mossberger, Stansbury, & Tolbert, 2003) are further exacerbated when governing processes are dominated by the agenda of the elite, and through other issues such as corruption. While it is relatively easy to provide cheap access to the Internet, by and large, the disparity between industrialised countries and their lesser developed counterparts can be observed, alongside a disparity between the elite and the upper middle class compared to lower stratas of society (Sassen, 2002). The nature of artefacts in itself is questionable at times; technological innovation can be political if they have a specific effect on a particular community or if it is technology that is designed for a political purpose (Winner, 1980). The public’s empowerment is related to their participation in the innovation process (Mansell, 2012). The use of digital technology as a political tool cannot be discounted either. The Internet’s use to democratise society is one that affects those adversely affected by the digital divide, because the users that have found ways to circumvent the divide are part of an online process to participate in more debates and increase their access to information, while those left out will inevitably be in a position that is worse than before (Couldry, 2009). This argument can be extended to imply that anyone that disagrees with the principles of the democratic process and equality could use the Internet to sow greater dissent and division, leading to more group-based participation in the democratic process. This is a double edged sword, for while some believe that increasing opportunities available through technological innovation can be used to eliminate socio-economic disparities (Gorard, Selwyn, & Williams, 2001), there is an argument to be made regarding providing access to technologies not being sufficient; without digital literacy the divide persists. Some would argue that in the case of the latter, user innovation is becoming a fundamental part of the process as a whole (von Hippel, 2005). However, those that lack the literacy to access the digital world cannot be helped in this way. Whoever acquires the skill – bearing in mind that this acquisition is not always available to everyone – can work towards helping themselves or their social group advance at the expense of others; as we will see in the findings, this is exactly what far-right groups and Islamic extremists are doing by proliferating their hate-filled narrative on social media platforms. According to Cammaerts (2009), the question of the reach of the Internet for those that are disempowered through digital divides is also a question that one must confront when discussing the possibility of hate speech online; who it targets, who receives the message and the sophistication of the message are all issues that must be discussed. Access limits the scope of who gets to view radical content, and the divides in literacy and empowerment both lead to the degree of sophistication of the message being constructed, who it reaches and whether it can stay online for an extended period for maximum reach (before taken down by state authorities or platforms) (Cammaerts, 2009).

Far-right groups and access to the Internet

There are various studies that point to the existence of far-right groups in the digital space and their proficiency in using digital tools and services (Kunkle, 2012; Ravndal, 2013; O'Callaghan, Greene, Conway, Carthy, & Cunningham, 2013b; Ben-David & Matamoros- Fernandez, 2016; Goodwin & Ramalingam, 2012). There is plausible evidence to believe that far-right groups and Islamic extremists from non-state terror groups such as the Islamic State are able, through their online activity – often on social media websites – to campaign for their cause, mobilise supporters across borders, bring their views into the mainstream on well-known radical right issues and even potentially influence policy decisions as a result (Liang, 2015; Goodwin & Ramalingam, 2012). Studies have revealed that in many cases, extremists on the Internet possess more than advanced proficiency of not only generating content online, but also covering their tracks in the process, ensuring that the veil of anonymity protects them from any legal recourse (Holt & Bolden, 2014). Castells’ (2004) idea of the enclosure of communications in the virtual space and its resulting effect on politics is an important point to be considered when discussing the use of Internet by the far-right and extremists for hate speech. The media being reworked as a public space has entailed that all political debates and battles are also conducted in this media space (Castells, 2004). Hence the battle for far-right ideologies can also be seen taking place in the same theatre. A key point of discussion is regarding the network within which far-right groups and Islamic extremists operate. The white supremacy movement in the US has been identified as a largely decentralised group, with “multiple centres of influence” and no central hierarchy governing their actions (Burris, Smith, & Strahm, 2000). However, the consistency within the arguments presented – all disparate groups tend to espouse a similar narrative – reflects the existence of an online community nonetheless, no matter how decentralised. Other writers have found correlations and external links between websites of extremist groups on the Internet and social media platforms, with links posted on private and public message boards leading to content on other websites (O'Callaghan, Greene, Conway, Carthy, & Cunningham, 2013b). This tells us that even researchers that found groups under the far-right umbrella to be disparate and not connected, observed similarities of thought and action in them. There is a common perception among many experts and academics alike, that the Internet’s value in promoting extremist thought is only supplementary, and is not effective on its own without physical contact in the real world (Conway, 2017). Conway (2017) also goes on to note that the idea that the Internet only provides a one-way interaction between producers of content and its consumers is simply not reflective of the whole picture, as the constant interactions between participants are fluid and flexible. The need to widen the scope of the debate and not only look to counter content that promotes violent radical action and instead tackle the softer versions of extremist propaganda will help in reducing the effect of radicalisation online (Conway, 2017). This argument highlights the need for the research being undertaken; while many studies have scrutinised the more obvious forms of hate speech, a detailed examination of the subtle narratives is also imperative.

Affordances

According to Virilio (2005, p. 107) “..the Internet is both the best and the worst of things”. His profound comment – first made in 1998 when a vast number of the affordances we are currently accustomed to did not exist in this shape or form – about the Internet being at both ends of the positive-negative spectrum simultaneously, can be understood to reference to the use of the Internet; in itself, the cyberspace network is neither positive nor negative, the uses one puts it to however, can be either, or even both (Virilio, 2005). With its myriad affordances, the Internet offers a host of opportunities for users to decide what they get from it. The space of flows – entailing a possibility of simultaneity without closeness (Castells, 2004), allows for several affordances for users of the Internet. Many of the uses from basic ones such as communication and content consumption can be used for benign purposes but can conversely also dwell in the realms of cybercrime. There is also no denying that the Internet has a variety of avenues for use in the political sphere (Cere, 2003). Types of users (hactivists or those looking to establish connections to indigenous cultures and diasporas) can vary, but the Internet and its many affordances, are available in differing proportions to individuals; as mentioned above, the level of digital divide within society for instance, keeps the Internet, like other realms of society very obviously stratified. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to argue then that political affordances of the Internet exist and can be used in both the progressive and regressive realms, depending on individual motivations and the political belief system espoused. An example of a ‘political’ use include ensuring that diaspora communities keep a close connection to their original country through the Internet acting as a tether for communication (Findlay, McCollum, Coulter, & Gayle, 2015). Another would entail feminist groups on the Internet that spread awareness about the problems associated with a patriarchal society, provide space for women to discuss issues relevant to them and allow opportunities for mobilisation and campaigning about rights- related issues (Cere, 2003).

Extremist affordances on the Internet

In the realm of cybercrime, according to Wall (2002), the Internet’s affordances can be broadly divided into three spheres; communication, cybercrime as a result of the creation of a transnational environment and crimes associated specifically to the virtual realm (Wall, 2002a). Communication supports existing criminal activities such as hate speech, terrorist attacks, stalking and others. Extremists and terrorists find the communication affordance of the Internet useful (Gerstenfeld, Grant, & Chiang, 2003). The creation of a transnational environment provides new avenues for criminal activity; which are covered by existing legislation; prominent examples include paedophilia or fraud. The changing dynamics of how we perceive distance and time in the virtual world has also led to a change in the types of crimes committed in the digital sphere; piracy online being one obvious example (Wall, 2002a). However, there are certain affordances that are specific to radical groups that must be explained.

Learning/information gathering

Aside from communication, another major affordance in the use of the Internet is information gathering. For far-right ideologies, this can entail acquiring technical knowledge in how to conduct violence in the real world, or to consume content centred around hate speech, that can reinforce an already extremist perspective (Szmania & Fincher, 2017). With the Internet, this learning can be obtained anywhere and at any time and place, provided there is access to a stable connection. Technical knowledge can involve a range of subjects such as information on how to conduct an attack or find out more about potential targets, while consuming content on one’s ascribed ideology can lead to a more steadfast belief (Denning, 2010). This last point will be explained in more detail below.

Financial affordances

An important point raised by Denning (2010) of terrorists using the Internet to “transact business” is one that is missing from many other comparable studies across the field of affordances of the Internet for extremists. From moving funds to generating revenues online, the Internet is used as both a means for transfer and earning money through various means. Raising money through donations online or through fraudulent schemes such as credit card theft are two examples of extremists using the Internet for increasing their funds (Denning, 2010). There are legal means for far-right individuals and extremists to earn money through social media platforms as well; if their content is not seen to be violating any terms and conditions or has not been flagged by other users, the monetisation benefits of YouTube and other platforms might help in financing more extremist propaganda.

Recruitment

Apart from other sources such as through connections with family or friends, publishing propaganda through the Internet and other forms of media is an important tool in the recruitment of new followers (Chermak, Freilich, & Suttmoeller, 2013). The followers one gains through the Internet may vary in their input but help in increasing the network of radical individuals willing to carry out violent attacks or further the divisive narrative. The Internet offers extremists an uncensored medium to tout their narrative and hence can be more effective in spreading the propaganda they support to recruit others to the cause (Wykes & Harcus, 2010).

Radicalisation and sowing division

Extremists using the Internet to further propagate their narrative and induce others to join their cause can only take place through the radicalisation of others. This ability to communicate directly with a fresh crop of potential followers is unprecedented, before the Internet, terrorists would have to rely on traditional modes of media picking up on their activities and providing information to the audience as news; extremists can now disseminate propaganda at a time and place of their choosing, in the way they want to depict it (Weimann, 2004). The Internet is also a relatively affordable and easy-to-access means of reaching an audience (Timofeeva, 2003). It is important to view radicalisation as a process instead of using it as a catch-all term of a sudden change in heart to conduct violent acts (Borum, 2011a). Borum’s (2011b) four-stage process of radicalisation, from having a grievance, to perceiving said grievance as injustice, leading to attributing a target who gets the blame for the injustice, to finally devaluation/dehumanising or ‘othering’ the supposed aggressor to make it acceptable to orchestrate acts of violence is helpful in identifying a simple pattern towards more extremist thought (Borum, 2011b). The narrative of this radicalisation can take four major forms; political, historical, socio-psychological and instrumental with an additional fifth ideological/theological narrative, specifically for groups that use religion as the basis of online radicalisation (Ashour, 2010). Ashour (2010) went on and explained these in greater detail: Political narratives usually address a grievance a group suffers from against a specific group; the Al- Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban’s war against the US is the perfect example of this. To give this narrative more depth, the group might identify specific instances in the past where they have been treated unjustly, hence forming a historical narrative. The socio-psychological narrative tends to pit non-mainstream ideas as more favourable than those widely accepted, such as the glorification of violence in the case of the Islamic State. The instrumental narrative refers to the efficacy of using violence as a means to achieve the goals touted by the group. For instance, the Afghan Taliban might frame its war against foreign troops in Afghanistan as effective, given that the western alliance has been unable to root out militias from various hard-to-reach regions of the country, resulting in a stalemate. Lastly, the ideological/theological narrative pertains to using religion to justify, glorify or necessitate violent acts, the call for all true Muslims to rise up and take arms against “infidel” non- Shariah governments (Ashour, 2010). For the purposes of this research, this final affordance, of propagating a narrative to sow division or recruit new followers, will be the crux of the arguments that follow. The use of the narrative in building a “mythic past” a troubled present and a promising future is also a tactic employed by radical far-right movements (Atton, 2006) and is visible in the narrative-building processes of the Islamic extremist movement as well. Everyday experiences of the members of the movement form a big part in the narrative used by these movements and the tendency to rely on populist rhetoric instead of more rational arguments for promoting division is a common feature among them (Couldry, 2002) (Atton, 2006). Examples of these experiences – often negative – when interacting or mingling with individuals from opposing groups are used in the speeches and statements of extremists to provide a more relatable avenue for potential recruits. Due to the many affordances and their differing values to each individual, it is hard to accurately gauge exactly how much motivation is received from the Internet by those committing criminal acts of terrorism or hate crime in the real world (Gill, Corner, Conway, Thornton, Bloom & Horgan, 2017). However, according to this research, the Internet facilitated the process of radicalisation and planning attacks. One of the more important findings in their research was that of ‘lone attackers’ – not associated to any specific terrorist organisation or related attack cells. For individuals like these, the Internet is used by terrorist organisations as the prime recruitment tool and as a means to provide the knowledge base for orchestrating acts of terror (Gill et al., 2017). The example that Gill et al. (2017) use is one of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attack; potential lone attackers can find content produced by terrorist organisations and become sympathisers, from there, the move to aligning oneself to the belief system to actually carrying out an attack is never a guarantee, but the existence of the Internet does make it much easier.

The impact of the Internet on narrative-building and radicalisation

However, the study also clarifies that making a distinction between online and offline radicalisation and terrorist activity is hard, if not impossible to identify. Often terrorists operate in both domains, causing an overlap (Gill et al., 2017). Reading extremist content online, meeting potential handlers or financiers face-to-face alongside visiting a hardliner mosque would blur the boundaries between the online and offline spaces (Gill et al., 2017). However, one could argue about entry-points; if the individual in question started their research online, the offline interactions can be seen as a spill-over effect and nothing else. The study in question argues differently, however. Gill et al. (2017) assert that ignoring the offline aspect and solely focusing on online interactions would make investigators and law enforcement officials miss half the story; and they are not wrong. If an investigator ignores intra-personal communication in the real world, an exchange of money, arms or even brainwashing rhetoric may be missed entirely, leading to catastrophic results. This argument fits with far-right groups as well, because there is no way to assess whether content on the Internet was the sole reason for increasing support for racist and intolerant rhetoric, but it is safe to assume that it had a part to play. While this argument has many merits, the use of social media to construct narratives – not possible through traditional media – by the far-right and Islamic extremist groups is an argument that the above research has not engaged sufficiently with. It is also not completely out of line to presume that the existence of such content in digital spaces is having a significant effect on rising intolerance and support for the far-right. There is evidence to suggest that extremists, both Islamic and those from the radical far-right are using the Internet to spread news or content to evoke an emotional response in others and galvanise more support for the cause (Kunkle, 2012). This is one of the central arguments of Kunkle’s (2012) research; if the Internet adds to the problem of violent actions committed as a result of indoctrination at the hands of extremism or far-right content, it can be assumed that one of the uses of the Internet is that it becomes a breeding ground of sorts for hate. Another reason for choosing to conduct this research on the online aspect without looking at the real world was born out of necessity and the limitations of scale and time; due to the limited scope of research as a Master’s thesis, alongside the limited timeframe one is working under, only social media and hate speech on platforms will be made the focus of this research. There are counter arguments to this view as well; looking into the Anders Behring Breivik case – convicted of terrorism in 2012 in Norway – reveals that online activity is not always a means for radicalisation to commit acts at a later stage, but instead a means to use one’s radical view to write messages of hate online. One can use the Internet as a means to further one’s pre-existing radicalised notions, through the use of blogposts to advance ideology (Ravndal, 2013). Ravndal’s (2013) note that the public posts of Breivik never raised any red flags for Norwegian authorities even if he was on a watchlist, however, all this tells us is that hate views, without direct incitement to violence can also sometimes lead to violence at a later stage.

Hate speech and extremism on the Internet

Delgado and Stefancic (2014) point to possible reasons for the increase in hate speech online – alongside other types of anti-social behaviour – one of which is the ability to “act and speak without self-identification” (Crosset, Tanner, & Campana, 2019). Possible anonymity or even the ability to speak in a public forum without having to bring up any qualifications or previous background or affiliations is something that lets individuals voice their opinions without fear of reprisal (Wykes & Harcus, 2010; Delgado & Stefancic, 2014). There is also the idea of following the trend, and since trolling has become such a big part of Internet culture, those that are rude or pass unsavoury comments in the digital space are likely to not only gain support for their views, but also encourage others to do the same. Then there is the additional problem of data accumulation in the online sphere and the permanence that comes with things being posted on the Internet. In the past, a spoken word, whether inflammatory or otherwise, tended to disappear or be forgotten as time went on, but on the Internet anything posted is likely to stay there especially if it gets viral (Delgado & Stefancic, 2014) unless it is removed at the behest of the individual that posted it, technology companies or state intervention; and even then, a record of it existing somewhere else is likely. This makes the problem of hate speech greater than it is in non-digital spheres, with greater reach, permanence, and increasing volume of hate content, the Internet exacerbates the problem by a huge margin. For instance, Holt, Freilich, Chermak, and McCauley’s (2015) study on political radicalisation on the Internet focuses on jihadist and victim videos online, and the impact they have on their audience. The pervasive argument in their study is of the use of the Internet by terrorists as a multi-purpose tool; both communication and recruitment are affordances for terrorists, and although the degree of success in both factors is unclear, there is no denying that the Internet offers an avenue for private communication and potential recruitment to whatever cause extremist groups are parroting (Holt et al., 2015). The key takeaway from this study is that the Internet allows for more reception of views through the ability to edit and create hate content, provide real time information as it happens, or allow for a greater audience compared to the word of mouth or even other mediums disseminating extremist content. It provides a healthy discussion on how the videos are framed and move people to try and commit acts of violence – victim videos to outrage and jihadist videos to provide a call to action and instructions on how to do it and how glorious it is (Holt, Freilich, Chermak, & McCauley, 2015). Apart from more direct forms radicalisation and divisive content online, hate speech in covert forms is also a very common factor that must be accounted for. Rhetoric is often kept to a more politically correct level of discourse, to ensure that no laws or terms of service are being broken (Daniels, 2008). As mentioned before, the Internet’s ability to provide an increased audience in the matter of radical views also has to do with its transnational make-up (Wykes & Harcus, 2010). Indeed, this transnationality can be seen extended to extremism and the far-right as well, where these movements have seen greater reception for their views across borders and has increased cooperation between various groups and allowed for a convergence of narratives in many cases (Caiani & Kröll, 2015). The narrative building process of extremist groups gets amplified as a result of the Internet’s mass reach (Liang, 2015). Crucially, extremists might not use the Internet to perpetrate real world attacks directly, but spread fear among groups and use their constructed narrative to incite others to commit violence in their name (Holt, 2012).

Filter bubbles and hiding hate speech online

Algorithms on social media platforms curate the content one has access to, with recommendations based on previous consumption segregating ideologies with suggestions that are meant to keep the user interested (Flaxman, Goel, & Rao, 2016). These “filter bubbles” can prevent stakeholders from policing the Internet for hate speech; the example of the recommendation system on YouTube creating safe spaces for terrorists to disseminate content without scrutiny – unless reported – is a relevant example (O'Callaghan, Greene, Conway, Carthy, & Cunningham, 2013a). There is also an argument to be made regarding online news consumption more or less replicating patterns of offline news consumption. Individuals can always directly access news websites when interested, and they are likely to consume news that fits their ideological perspective (Flaxman, Goel, & Rao, 2016). Even when opposing views are presented simultaneously, research has shown that users are more likely to consume the content that adheres to their preconceived notions or fits in with their political perspective. Attitude change as a whole is not easy to achieve given that users are likely to rely on their peers and preconceived notions of “trust” in specific sources to consume news and other media (Liao & Fu, 2013). The existence of wide-spanning networks of extremists online, spread across platforms such as YouTube and Twitter, enable objectionable content to stay online and harder to detect due to a decentralised means of redirecting potential audience, through the use of private groups, messages and other hidden forms of conversation (O'Callaghan et al., 2013b). The increased activity of these groups on social media platforms (O’Callaghan, Greene, Conway, Carthy, & Cunningham, 2013c) has led to the creation of stable communities that cross international boundaries. If the algorithms of platforms and their inability to remove such content can be directly linked to the spread of hate speech online, there must be more scrutiny on why these technology companies are failing to remove specific content from their websites even though a direct harm can be associated to it. The responsibility of controlling the spread of hate speech online and who it falls to will be discussed in more detail in the policy section, but suffice it to say that this study recognises the problems platforms might encounter in looking to remove hate content on their websites when it is hidden through algorithms and filter bubbles. However, in the case of open instances of hate speech that are easily found using basic searches on these websites, platforms must take responsibility for failing to remove such content.

Social Media as Gatekeepers

Platforms – “a shared, stable set of hardware, software, and networking technologies on which users build and run computer applications” (Ballon, 2009, p. 10) – perform the role of gatekeepers of information and content on social media, their role in the curation of content entails that they exercise control over the value of the network. This goes beyond the idea of ownership, given that platforms have a two-sided relationship with customers – with consumers and producers of content that are attempting to reach the consumers as their audience are customers for the platform (Ballon & Van Heesvelde, 2011). Two-sided markets – platforms that have customers on both sides in terms of users and advertisers – have substantial market power and the barriers to entry in competing with these large firms imply that they can operate in a monopolistic fashion and exploit customers (Evans, 2002). The only important thing of note here is that while pricing issues might not take centre stage as they do in another types of monopolistic businesses, the problem of what sort of content these platforms are prioritising on – given that often they are the sole provider for that type of content to specific customers – becomes a central issue. The Internet has allowed for the circumvention of gatekeeping bottlenecks that were one of the foundations of traditional media. The type of news, information and content that was accessible through traditional forms of media came curated through the decision- making circles of media companies and broadcasting outlets. This is no longer the case as looser controls on content creation through increased access to tools for content creation and the publication of these productions on various platforms has increased the reach of user generated content and decreased legitimacy as a result (Napoli, 2018). The two-sided nature of a social media platform, coupled with more lax controls on the type of content available for easy consumption makes, in part, technology companies complicit in the spread of hate speech online.

Countermeasures/policing hate speech

The precedence of limiting speech on the Internet by the state in the interests of protecting certain users from potential negative effects was first set in both Europe and the USA due to concerns of exposure of children to “indecent communications” (Heins, 2002). Some writers have drawn the distinction between “harmful” and “illegal” content, in the efforts to frame censorship debates across the world and their various merits and demerits. For instance, instructions on bomb-making or incitement to hatred might be construed as illegal whereas ‘harmful’ content may have a more subjective value judgement attached to it (Akdeniz, 2002). Given the many challenges that beset lawmakers from formulating policy on policing the Internet transnationally, there is a common misconception about the Internet being “ungovernable” (Mansell, 2012). This misguided belief stems from the trans- jurisdictional and instantaneous aspects of the Internet, and the idea of who ‘controls’ cyberspace for both political and commercial use has led to stakeholders trying to take greater ownership, or in some cases (with platforms and responsibility over policing content) it also leads to passing the buck of responsibility on to other interested parties (Wall, 2002b). There are different perspectives on Internet governance, with various stakeholders propagating different values on shifting responsibility on to specific institutions in order to receive the most benefit from regulatory practices (Mansell, 2012). One common perspective simply relates to extending real-world rules and laws to include the online world; this has been seen by governments and other regulatory bodies as a rational approach when considering exerting control of the Internet (van Dijk, 2006). However, as van Dijk (2006) notes, this would not be wholly possible due to the fundamental differences between the real and virtual worlds, with new situations and complexities emerging in the latter to merely consider extending the same laws and rules in the digital world as well would be tantamount to patchworking policymaking instead of designing new means to specifically counter the negative effects of the digital environment. New regulation must be drafted that does not depend on the existence of specific technologies, but on the guiding principles of the law in high-tech societies (van Dijk, 2006). Those that prioritise the commodity value of digital information are likely to push for more copyright protection, with state policy in the control of information trumping concerns of privacy, security and unmitigated freedoms on the Internet. On the other end of the spectrum, the stakeholders that favour an information commons approach would want greater freedoms, increased access to the average Internet user and a bottom-up approach – regulation from the users rather than state sponsored policies – to Internet governance (Mansell, 2012). Wall (2002b) goes even further to identify five distinct levels at which policing takes place, starting from Internet users and user groups, with the example of the ‘report’ button on twitter, proving to be an obvious means of checks and balances on the Internet. The second level of policing is at the level of ISPs which have the power to take down material when required by law or due to specific circumstances. Corporate security organisations, the security departments of big corporations act on the behalf of their employers to police the Internet at the third level as a means of protecting corporate interests online. On the fourth and fifth levels are state-funded, non-public police organisations and state-funded public police organisations, examples of the first including the now defunct National Infrastructure Protection Center in the US and the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) which restricts traffic that contains pornographic content, or something deemed objectionable to Islam. The fifth level pertains to institutions that have actual jurisdiction over apprehending criminals for crimes committed on the Internet such as cybercrime departments of local police departments (Wall, 2002b) or the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in Pakistan, which has the federal authority over cybercrime. While there is no need to stick to this model rigidly, its use as a reference point cannot be overstated. The debate surrounding the level of state intervention in formulating digital policies must also be considered before moving forward. Neumann (2013) maintains that recognising the fact that the elimination of all extremist content online by the state is impossible would be an important step in taking measures to reduce it. Instead of looking to completely eliminate the contentious content – which would be impossible and hence an exercise in futility, states should look to manage the problem in the best way possible. This argument can also be extended to the realm of hate speech in the far-right domain; the sheer volume of inflammatory content online and the lack of understanding on how to govern the Internet make it impossible to do a full clean-up without changing policy or action. Reduction then, as a state action is the only possible way forward. Following this understanding, the next step in developing a strategy to fight the prevalence of extremist and far-right content that borders on racism online would be to develop a counter narrative; society as a whole and the youth in particular need to be taught to shun such content based on a lack of logical reasoning and poor argument – even if the obvious ethical and moral arguments against such content are to be ignored (Neumann, 2013). Policymakers and the state in general need to focus more on curbing demand rather than look to cut across the supply lines of such content. Lastly, Neumann also recommends that the government look to exploit the existence of objectionable content online; trace the sources of such content, investigate those responsible and gather intelligence on those that create and peruse this content in order to root out sympathisers and supporters. This three-pronged aim; reduce supply, reduce demand and look to use the existence of such content to pursue those responsible is (in theory) an effective means to counter the spread of extremism online by governments (Neumann, 2013). With inherent similarities between both racist and extremist content (the way it is used to manipulate peoples’ group affiliations) this line of thinking can also be extended in countering the former. However, this should not be interpreted as the perfect approach; whether education is the only way to steer members of the youth away from hardliners is questionable, as is its overall efficacy. If we limit state responsibility in the way of removing content online, someone else must look to do this. Additionally, while this study only looks at state intervention as a possible course of action to remove objectionable content online, it ignores social media companies and the tools they possess to counter the spread of hate online. Not only does this study not point to the inherent responsibility of social media websites to remove content – as has been mentioned previously in the filter bubble and gatekeeping arguments and will also be taken up below – it fails to look at technology companies as more capable of removing content online. Below there will be arguments as to why social media platforms are perfectly suited to countering this problem, and ethically have the most responsibility to do this as the operators of a two-sided market, reaping benefits on all sides.

So who polices?

In the past, policymaking by state and transnational actors has focused mainly on countering hate speech on public websites, while the debate on criminalising hate speech versus protecting the freedoms of speech and expression has continued unabated (Banks, 2010). Social media platforms, with their terms and conditions and user agreements on the platforms now determine in large part on what constitutes hate speech, and take action when they see necessary (Ben-David & Matamoros-Fernandez, 2016). This also weakens Wall’s (2002b) argument of the first level of regulation taking place at the hands of the user; while still valid, the platforms ultimate say on the subject usually settles the matter. With the digital landscape becoming increasingly transnational by the day, the debate surrounding regulation of the Internet is the same as it was since its invention; do states and transnational governing bodies take over the responsibility of policing the Internet, or do we let platforms and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) ensure that their customers are kept safe from harm and prevent the breaking of any national or international laws that might come into play?

Unilateral Regulation

The argument that states should extend their policing powers to the cyberspace is not new, nor is it completely irrational (Wall, 2002b; van Dijk, 2006). The criminalisation of hate speech offline implies that states should use the same policies to remove hate speech from the digital space as well. However, jurisdictional limitations and confusions over pinpointing the geographical location of where a crime is committed – or where content is created versus where it is disseminated – is a big stumbling block to the principle of letting states take over the regulation of hate speech on the Internet (Banks, 2010). Nonetheless, each government has to protect its citizens from crimes committed on the Internet, and hence must deploy legislation accordingly. Additionally, while states have a responsibility to protect their citizens, to assume they will also do so is false. The rise of populist leaders in the world and their own divisive narrative implies that these leaders will not always be overly keen to put curbs on hate speech when required.

Multilateral Regulation

A multilateral regulatory process would at the very least, circumvent the issue of jurisdictional limitations that states are bound by when attempting to make laws regarding the prevention of hate crime online (Banks, 2010). For instance, anti-incitement laws form a restriction on speech in European countries as a result of anti-terrorism laws around the continent (Boyne, 2010). The Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, and later, the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime that specifically addresses hate speech is an example of a successful multilateral attempt at controlling the spread of hate speech in digital spaces. This would make supranational regulation a more functional approach towards policing hate speech online compared to unilateral forms of governance, however, as Banks (2010) notes, the European Union’s lack of authority over states that are not members, alongside the US becoming a haven for hate speech makes the multilateral approach meaningless unless most countries in the international community agree to get behind supranational efforts to curb hate speech. A general lack of agreement at the international level on intrinsic freedoms and the definition of hate speech are stumbling blocks to an effective multilateral approach to decreasing the spread of hate speech in cyberspace (Banks, 2010).

Technological Regulation

Beyond putting legal safeguards in place to prevent the dissemination of hate speech, there are ways to restrict and remove content through Internet Service Providers (ISPs), content hosting platforms and social media websites, limiting the type of content available online. ISPs can block websites deemed to be uploading objectionable content (Banks, 2010), and social media and content hosting platforms can use their terms and conditions, algorithms and content removal initiatives to remove hate speech from their platforms (Heins, 2014). This is not a fool-proof means of removing hate speech; users can use firewalls or VPNs to circumvent the blocks put in place by ISPs and violate the terms and conditions of platforms and content hosting websites and use hate speech undetected online (Wall, 2002b). However, with the private sector so heavily invested and often entering into lengthy terms of use agreements with consumers and controlling large parts of the market (Cammaerts, 2008), a joint policing approach was seen as the most natural outcome; a collaboration between corporations (platforms) and state instruments (police and other legal institutions within the state) hence, is the most rational way to go about reducing crime on the Internet (Wall, 2000). In the UK for example, like many other countries, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) do have the additional onus to remove objectionable content that might appear on their servers, however, given the lack of any prosecution cases against ISPs for failing to remove objectionable content, one can safely say that the government does not overburden ISPs in discharging their duties of moderating content (Akdeniz, 2002).

Why platforms must take a greater role

However, all of the above discussion pertained to what technological business can do; it is also important to establish what these large-scale companies should be doing as well. Technology firms frame their services in a way which gives them the strategic position of making the maximum amount of profits, while taking advantage of all the regulatory protections they can use and avoiding any responsibility that does not directly benefit them (Wyatt, 2004). There is a trend towards the conglomeration of services, with platforms looking to strategically position themselves in a way where they can receive the maximum benefits of controlling a two-sided market (Cammaerts, 2008). According to the actor-network theory, equal agency must be granted to both human and non-human agents – considered to mean platforms in this case – to explain any “sociotechnical” phenomenon on these websites (Latour, 2005 in Ben-David & Matamoros- Fernandez, 2016). The functionality of the platforms, their structure, design and other features which make social media websites the way they are also determine how users interact with them on within them as well. The affordances users find on these websites exist only because they have been created as such. Looking beyond the motivations of extremists and their followers to including the usability of the websites and its main features such as the “share”, “report”, “like” and “comment” buttons will help in providing a more holistic picture to the idea of hate content proliferating on these platforms (Ben-David & Matamoros-Fernandez, 2016). Intermediaries – private entities that host, store, deliver or curate the digital content of others – include hosting websites such as google and platforms such as Facebook and twitter (Gillespie, 2010) and should, as private entities, take a greater role in policing the spread of hate online (Citron & Norton, 2011). With the legal immunity they possess in many countries with regards to publishing content created by users (with the exception of countries such as Germany under the NetzDG law) creating terms and conditions and user agreements that seek to “foster digital citizenship by inculcating norms of respectful, vigorous engagement” (Citron & Norton, 2011, p. 1440) must be made a priority, thereby creating the norms for a safe and healthy online environment. The terms and service of Facebook and other platforms are not always clear and understandable; decisions to remove content are not always highlighted or clarified. Users have the option to theoretically change the services if they do not approve of the rules set; finding an alternative to google for instance, but the only reason to do so would be to properly understand what they are missing out on, which, with an opaque method of removing content, is not possible (Heins, 2014). Even the report or flag mechanism – which empowers users to report content they deem objectionable to let the platform weigh the case for removal – which all major platforms have are not always transparent or even representative, with the ultimate authority of removal lying with the platforms themselves and might vary geographically, from country to country (Crawford & Gillespie, 2014). Technology companies use the word ‘platform’ for its double meaning. It can be used both as a facilitator of use of the Internet, thereby granting platforms a central position in the debates surrounding Internet governance – with the example of google and YouTube on the net neutrality debate. Or it can be employed as a means of waiving liabilities by the platforms off of themselves highlighting their status as hosting agents for content only instead of being its creators (Gillespie, 2010). YouTube offers to facilitate the content creation process of users by providing them a platform from which to reach an audience, but by controlling the conditions within which the audience and content creators must interact, platforms such as YouTube controls this dialogue as well (Burgess & Green, 2008). Since YouTube has accepted that it will look to reduce sexual and profane content from its website by removing certain videos found to be objectionable, having an adult category and automatically placing sexually suggestive or profane videos at a lower level on its “Most Viewed” or “Top Favourited” list, it is accepting that it shapes how videos are found (Gillespie, 2010) and hence needs to take greater responsibility for hate content on its services. To summarise, since platforms are in the position to derive maximum amounts of profit, have agency due to their functionality, possess legal immunity in many cases, have unclear terms and conditions which are not applied consistently and enjoy the ability to both centralise their position or remove themselves from debates concerning issues on the Internet, they must take more of a central position in removing hate content online. Their role as gatekeepers of information on these websites, and the occurrence of easy-to-access instances of hate speech by known actors – the main subject of this research, also leads to a greater responsibility in removing hate speech. This is because not only do they have the most responsibility to do this because of how they are constructed, they are also in the best position to do so. However, platforms have often been accused of not doing enough on their websites to control the spread of hate speech (Awan, 2016). Social media giants such as Facebook and twitter have been asked by a number of European countries, with the UK among them, to take a more prominent role in removing hate speech. Awan (2016), while analysing hatred against Muslims on Facebook, revealed that the social media platforms have on many occasions failed to remove content that had been flagged and reported by its users as abusive or inciting hatred (Awan, 2016).

Chapter 4: Methodology

This study looked to address one research question split into two parts: What makes social media a suitable breeding ground for the prevalence of hate speech online? The research looks to assess how the affordances of social media make it possible for perpetrators of hate speech to spread their narrative; how these actors worked under the guidelines of social media websites and still managed to disseminate hate speech online through these websites. Understanding the narratives these individuals espoused in their divisive arguments is fundamental towards explaining why their content remains online. Additionally, the degree to which the individuals identified were willing to go to – the extent of hate speech – without this content being removed by the platforms was also under consideration. For this purpose, two sub-questions were formulated to more accurately address the research framework: a) How do known perpetrators of hate speech operate on social media platforms to further their narrative? As mentioned above, and in the literature review section, members of the far-right and Islamic extremist movement use social media to further their cause in a way which could have never been achieved by employing traditional mediums. This study assessed the social media activity of known proponents of hate speech on two platforms and analysed the arguments they use to justify the movement’s ideology and how they structured this narrative. Whether these individuals used the affordances of social media to toe the line between freedom of speech and hate speech in a way which escapes detection from these platforms will be an important part of the cases elaborated on below. b) How well are platforms dealing with the responsibility to take hate content off their websites? As a follow-up aspect, this research also attempted to identify the scale of failure of technology companies to remove hate speech from their platforms; as mentioned in the literature review, there are instances of hate that are harder to detect, however in this research, known far-right actors were looked at and their popularity alone within their movement and beyond as known perpetrators of hate speech entailed that platforms keep a closer eye on the content that comes from them. Whether this is indeed the case will form a subsidiary part of the analysis in the cases below. This study relied on a mix methods approach to formulate two different cases to elaborate on the existence of hate speech on social media platforms and answer the questions identified above. By gathering primary data that the researcher knew was available online, the two cases were formulated using the mini-ethnographic case study approach to assess the permeation of hate speech online. This method was chosen due its assistance in understand the relationship between online and offline environments (Wilson, 2006). While this study only focuses on the online aspect, there is a direct correlation to the hate speech disseminated on the internet and crimes committed as a result in the real world. A specific case concerning an instance where tensions flared up in one of the countries of research, Pakistan, was the first case of the permeation of hate speech on social media. The second case in the United Kingdom (UK), involved a more general approach featuring the same social media platforms, but rather choosing to gather data through actors in the far-right movement of the UK and look to deconstruct their narratives and assess whether it fits in with hate speech parameters defined below. The selected cases were not intended to offer perfect comparison to one another, for that was not their purpose. The main motivation behind narrating these two cases was the need to show instances of hatred on social media across disparate situations, with differing regional socio-political contexts and offer up a detailed analysis of what this hate speech is and how these perpetrators use it for their own ends. The problem of hate speech online has been recognised as a very real one across the board (Holt, Freilich, Chermak, & McCauley, 2015), but so far, both state and private mechanisms to counter it have fallen short of their target. This study primarily looked to highlight this fact to identify the lacunas in the removal process of platforms and their culpability in allowing for hate speech to proliferate online. The need to use a mixed methods approach for data collection stemmed from both suitability and necessity; due to the nature of the topic, the data being analysed and the internet itself, adapting a methodological course that adequately answered the research questions was the most logical course of action. One of the primary objectives in choosing the suitable method for research in this study was the need to reach data saturation (Fusch, Fusch, & Ness, 2017); ensuring that the cases were based on the wealth of the data extracted is paramount to designing a successful study, especially qualitative research. In terms of suitability, the aim of this research was important in providing a framework for the methods; the study attempted to provide a snapshot of hate speech on social media platforms. It did not look to provide a holistic account of hate speech online, nor did it attempt to chart its rise or uncover reasons for it. The idea was to paint a qualitative picture with the chosen actors using hate speech as its central focus to understand what this hate really is and show the deficiencies in the attempts of social media platforms to remove such content. An ethnographic case study featuring two separate situations tells us that the problem is not a one-off – and platforms will need to make more effort in countering it. With regards to necessity, as highlighted in the theoretical framework, the existence of filter bubbles and the existence of content in various ‘corners’ of social media websites in isolation – not always visible to the naked eye – presented the particular problem of finding access into those networks to investigate. An ethnographic case study formulation helped gather data where other methods might not have delivered the same result. The researcher’s own experiences from witnessing the events first-hand assisted in constructing the case in Pakistan and finding the relevant data sources using well-known individuals in the far-right movement in Britain to extract evidence in a time bounded manner for the UK greatly helped in developing the narrative. There is a precedent for case study formulation to chart the use of hate speech online and its relation to increased radicalisation. Holt et al. (2015) used court case transcriptions to assess the link of radicalisation with the consumption of extremist videos online. They supported their research through the use of first-hand testimonies at the trial proceedings and then assessed the data in reference to their research question (Holt, Freilich, Chermak, & McCauley, 2015). Similarly, this research looked to gather relevant data from the proverbial horse’s mouth as well, by attempting to get direct statements from those associated with both movements in the two countries identified; the far-right Islamic movement in Pakistan and the far-right Anti-Islam movement in the United Kingdom. Concerns of reliability and validity have always tended to surround qualitative research in both the social and the natural sciences. The arguments for qualitative research’s inability to be replicated for further testing, and being subject to researcher’s bias have some merit, however, looking to judge qualitative research through a quantitative mechanism is not really practical. The purpose of qualitative research is to provide a different perspective into research on a subject, and hence should not be put through the same tests as the ones we would apply to a more quantitative approach (Noble & Smith, 2015). Where quantitative studies use reliability as a means to judge the quality or standards of the research, there is an argument of qualitative research being of a high standard if it assists in “generating understanding” on the issue being researched or a value is being added by providing a new perspective on an existing phenomenon (Golafshani, 2003). This is what the aim was with this research as well. The two cases were extracted from the United Kingdom and Pakistan. The reason these two were chosen over others was the need to add to the cross-cultural understanding of the issue. The choice of countries, as mentioned above, is also largely determined by the method chosen; an ethnographic study could only be possible with a sample that the researcher was already familiar with. With an increased technological understanding and an improved skillset in both the Islamic extremists and far-right parties across the world, the rise of hate speech in western societies and developed democracies is a very big problem (Goodwin & Ramalingam, 2012); this makes the choice of the United Kingdom acceptable. One could also argue that as a fledgling democracy on the forefront of the war on terror, Pakistan’s strategic position also makes a study on hate speech in the country significant. Language was also a significant factor in the choice of country; English, Urdu and Punjabi are the only languages spoken and understood by the researcher, which is why choosing countries that would have content available in these languages was important. As mentioned in the literature review, hate speech online primarily exists in bubbles that are not easy to access for an outsider (O'Callaghan, Greene, Conway, Carthy, & Cunningham, 2013a). As a witness to the case in Pakistan from the perspective of a journalist and with a limited amount of preliminary research done on the far-right movement in the UK, identifying the main actors in both cases became possible. Twitter and YouTube were selected for primary data extraction for both cases, alongside relying on newspaper reports to set the contextual groundwork. Both platforms used differing methods of data extraction. For twitter, the research used personal accounts of known perpetrators of hate speech online (where available) – one in each case – to extract all tweets for at least a two-month period to determine whether they contained offensive content. For YouTube, searches on the platform were conducted using a mix of keywords in order to find videos of speeches or interviews of the identified proponents that clearly use hate speech to galvanise supporters of both movements. The names of individuals identified – elaborated on in more detail below – were always at the centre of any search keywords entered. Online newspapers and websites were used as a supplementary data source where needed; primarily to set the context of both cases. This included constructing brief profiles of the individuals studied in the research, and in establishing other facts surrounding both cases. The two social media platforms were identified owing to the veracity of the content within; only interviews or speeches by the identified actors in both cases were considered on YouTube instead of second-hand information, while the data on twitter was only extracted from two verified accounts of both Khadim Rizvi for the first case and Katie Hopkins for the second. Data on twitter will set an initial foundation of the sort of narratives being put forth by these individuals while an analysis of videos on YouTube will help in establishing a more context-based understanding of what these actors are trying to say about themselves, their opinions and the movement they represent.

Twitter

Twitter, being the main social network frequented by users who are more involved with and interested in the news (Hermida, 2010), represents a relevant source of voices and opinions. It also provides a virtual space where a lot of the debates and discourses on current social, cultural and political issues take place. Content on the social media platform can be a good indicator of political polarisation and one’s perspective on current issues (Wihbey, Joseph, & Lazer, 2019). In both countries, the use of twitter is commonplace and alongside other subjects, discussions about politics and other related issues are standard. For twitter, the study included two accounts – one for each case – from well-known far-right and extremist individuals that are still or were operational until the data gathering stage. There is a precedent for manual selection of accounts on twitter (Crosset, Tanner, & Campana, 2019) for hate speech research, and this study can also do so, given its qualitative disposition. The first step in extracting data from twitter was the selection of accounts that would potentially discuss extremist content such as leaders of far-right groups and political parties, or active ideological propagandists. Due to the attempts by platforms to remove objectionable content online, many of the profiles and accounts initially earmarked for research were already suspended or removed, such as Tommy Robinson’s official handle, and those of his former party Britain First, alongside that of the English Defence League. The tools used to extract tweets from accounts of individuals were Import.io and Vicinitas. A more detailed explanation of the two accounts and why they were selected is provided in the case breakdown below.

YouTube

Again, like in the case of twitter, the use of YouTube as the primary user-uploaded video streaming content makes it a prime candidate to explore manifestations of hate speech online in both the UK and Pakistan. There is evidence to suggest that hate speech on the platform sometimes exists in filter bubbles not visible to those that do not regularly consume such content, and at other times users are rerouted through other spaces for hate speech to consume more content on YouTube (O'Callaghan, Greene, Conway, Carthy, & Cunningham, 2013b). With this assumption in mind, the research attempted to look for hate speech based on keywords with the names of individuals associated with hate speech as the central focus. The study first identified individuals known for their radical views in both cases and looked for related speeches and interviews on the user-uploading video platform. These videos were then downloaded and transcribed to extract content relevant to the research. Finally, each transcript was analysed with hate content identified according to the parameters identified below.

Case 1 Khadim Rizvi’s hate speech following the Asia Bibi acquittal

The selected case in Pakistan involves Asia Bibi, a woman accused of blasphemy in Pakistan. Her acquittal in a Supreme Court appeal after ten years of wrongful incarceration and the subsequent hate that followed on twitter, leading to widespread protests on the streets of the country, and arrests by the government as a result are the focus in this case. Khadim Hussain Rizvi, a leader of Tehreek-i-Labaik, a political party in Pakistan, used hate speech against Asia Bibi and galvanised his supporters to orchestrate violent protests. Although his speeches were banned on television channels, videos online on social media websites were circulated to the point where parts of the country where he had never physically visited saw violent protests erupt. Speeches of Khadim Rizvi have contained open and veiled threats against the judiciary, judges, generals and members of the minority community in the past, hence both the content on twitter and YouTube will be looked for other instances of hate speech. Khadim Rizvi’s personal account on twitter was scraped for tweets before it was removed after being reported en masse by members of twitter in Pakistan due to the inflammatory content present within. Although as mentioned previously, Mr Rizvi’s account was removed by twitter following multiple reports from Pakistan-based users on the platform, his twitter activity was instrumental in spreading his message during the protests considering that the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) had ordered television channels to not air his speeches or any footage regarding the protests while they were being orchestrated. The tweets on Khadim Rizvi’s official account were multilingual, in English, Punjabi and Urdu and will be attached in the appendix in the original language, for greater scrutiny if needed. As far as YouTube is concerned, there are still many videos of the now-arrested political leader on YouTube giving speeches at rallies or other events in Punjabi. The videos of speeches given are quite clearly his own words without any changes made, barring perhaps minor edits to trim certain parts out. This might of course, lead to certain key points being missed; perhaps hate comments were made that were edited out by the users that uploaded them, or maybe certain statements were deemed more objectionable than others and hence removed. However, that issue notwithstanding, this case will depict the use of hate in these speeches – still accessible on YouTube. Seven videos of Mr Rizvi’s speeches with a total runtime of 39 minutes and 41 seconds on the Asia Bibi judgement and other incidents of hate violence were translated, transcribed and flagged for inflammatory content, proving that social media platforms have not been able to curtail the spread of hate speech on their platforms. The study attempts to understand the content of his speeches, to pinpoint where the narrative slips in the realm of hate speech, and what argument the preacher uses to get his point across. The search keywords for Khadim Rizvi’s speeches all included both “Khadim Rizvi” and “Asia Bibi” as the main words when videos were being searched for.

Case 2 Britain’s Islamophobia Problem

While the first case was a specific instance which lead to widespread protests in Pakistan, the second case was a more general foray into the subject of hate speech in the UK. It attempted to chart the existence of hate speech online in a European democratic country, amidst stricter laws and policies to counter the problem and understand the arguments used by the perpetrators to increase their support base. The case looked at two known actors in the far-right movement in the UK, the first being notable leader of the far-right movement and formerly the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson. Alongside Robinson, Katie Hopkins, a media personality known for her strong views against Muslims was looked as the other individual in this case. Out of these, only Katie Hopkins has a functional and verified twitter account which was scraped for tweets. The twitter accounts of the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson, the official account of the For Britain party and others were all suspended due to reports by other users. As in the case above, the study used search keywords with the names of actors within and looked at speeches and interviews where they might have used hate speech in their discourse. Since the analysis in this case is more exploratory for YouTube, the aim was to identify, transcribe and analyse at least 7 videos of speeches or interviews of a total runtime of one hour, forty-one minutes and twenty-two seconds of known far-right individuals, to look for instances of hate speech. Speeches and interviews by Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins were scrutinised to look for hate speech under the parameters.

The parameters for detecting hate speech The data under analysis was not looked at with any set parameters in mind, as is common with many qualitative studies, inferences were only formed after the data gathering stage was completed (Corbin & Stauss, 2007). This type of open coding is acceptable in qualitative studies and has been used in other studies on hate speech as well, with Awan’s (2016) study on hate speech on Facebook as a recent example. The inductive approach of looking “before interpreting” has also been used in Crosset et al.’s (2019) study on far-right groups on twitter. The rationale behind using this method to define parameters instead of looking to readjust parameters used in previous studies is partly because of the inclusion of both Islamic extremism and white nationalism into this study; most other researches study only one and hence do not account for the differences between the two narratives. Secondly, the overall decentralised nature of the content – all hate propagandists, even those that share ideologies do not necessarily make the same arguments, although similarities might exist, with different references to history or address particular instances in the national discourse – entails that preconceived notions about the data are kept to a minimum before the data was collected. It is important to remember that since both cases in question were centred on known proponents of hate speech through the ethnographic approach, the researcher used his own experiences in identifying specific sources of data extraction with targeted with searches on both platforms. After reviewing the data of 7 videos from YouTube and 226 tweets for the first case and 7 videos and 759 tweets for the second, a four-tiered set of parameters for hate speech was developed. The tweets and instances of hate speech on YouTube videos were flagged in the date set and later used in support of formulating the cases and were assessed to determine whether social media does indeed act as a fertile breeding ground for extremism and hate speech. The four parameters identified were applied to the data sets of both twitter and YouTube and are as follows: 1) Sowing division/insulting other religions, casts, creed, ethnicities or races

When it comes to talking about divisive instances of speech, they can be seen as a predicator of the society or certain groups within it heading towards more radicalism and hence making society more divided along the lines of specific groups, whether they be religious or racial. This type of speech can also be considered being hateful, even if a direct call to violence is not being launched explicitly. Identifying Muslims as terrorists or criminals in the case of Islamophobic far-right parties in the UK and referring to all non-Muslims as “infidels” while using a host of other derogatory slurs as was evident in the speeches of Khadim Rizvi in Pakistan are examples of such divisive content and can be mentally or emotionally distressing for the groups on the receiving end.

2) Justification/glorification of violence

This refers to using violent actors as heroes of the cause, or to use historical examples to make violence in certain situations acceptable. Lauding the crimes of others, alluding to perceived crimes against the majority group which warrants a response – with the implication of violence being a logical recourse – or simply using the threat of impending violence as a means to react before it’s too late; all of these are examples of the justification or glorification of violent acts to support ideological principles.

3) Allusion of incitement to violence

This pertains to one of the murky lines that propagators of hate speech often tread, with indirect incitement to violence. Asking supporters to “stand up for themselves” or “grow a backbone” or speaking of flared emotions or anger as a means to cause the flare-up that they are actually referring to, are all tactics used by populist leaders to incite their followers to commit violence, while waiving themselves of any liability if any violence does end up taking place.

4) Clear Incitement to violence

The last category is the most obvious and direct; a call to violence based on differences between groups, races, religions or ideologies. Asking supporters to fight other groups or carry out acts of violence, whether specific or general are all included in this category. Chapter 5: Case Studies

Case 1: Khadim Rizvi’s hate speech following the Asia Bibi acquittal

Asia Naureen, more commonly known as Asia Bibi, is a member of the Christian minority community in Pakistan hailing from Sheikhupura, a town in Punjab close to the provincial capital, Lahore. In 2009, Asia was accused of committing blasphemy – punishable by death under Article 295c of the PPC relating to blasphemy or the insult of Prophet Muhammad. The issue was raised over fetching water from a well – Asia drank from a jug which Muslim women around her found offensive and five days later, she had a mob led by a cleric outside her house with the police in tow, accusing her of committing blasphemy by insulting the prophet. She was taken outside of her house and beaten by the mob while the police watched; knowing full well that Pakistan has seen many hyped mobs kill those accused of blasphemy in frenzies such as this2. She was arrested after this and sentenced to death after being convicted of blasphemy in 2010. After spending eight years in jail in solitary confinement on death row3, during which the appeal process of her case went from court to court, her death sentence was suspended in 2015 and she was acquitted of all charges in October 2018, when the Supreme Court finally ruled on the appeal of her case, citing a lack of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt4. Asia was then kept in an unnamed location in Islamabad for her protection until she moved to Canada in May 2019 to protect herself from the many death threats she faced in Pakistan5. Khadim Hussain Rizvi is a far-right cleric – from the Barelvi school of thought in Islam – and has gained popularity in Pakistan over the course of the past three years. He is the founder of one of the newest far-right Islamist parties in the Pakistani political scene, the Tehreek-i-Labaik Pakistan (TLP)6, which came into being after Salmaan Taseer, the former Governor of Punjab – Pakistan’s most populous province – was assassinated by a member

2 Asia Bibi: Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy case by Shumaila Jaffery. Published February 1, 2019. Retrieved July 06, 2019. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Asia_Bibi 3 Pakistan blasphemy case: Asia Bibi freed from jail by Harriet Sherwood. Published November 8, 2018. Retrieved July 06, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/07/pakistan-blasphemy-case- christian-farm-labourer-asia-bibi-still-in-jail 4 Supreme Court acquits Aasia Bibi, orders immediate release by Haseeb Bhatti and AFP. Published October 31, 2018. Retrieved July 06, 2019. https://www.dawn.com/news/1442396 5 Asia Bibi: Christian leaves Pakistan after blasphemy acquittal by BBC. Published May 8, 2019. Retrieved July 06, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48198340 6 Tehreek Labaik to hold Islamabad long march by The Nation. Published November 4, 2019. Retrieved July 06, 2019. https://nation.com.pk/04-Nov-2017/tehreek-labik-to-hold-islamabad-long-march of his own security detail in the federal capital Islamabad in January 2011. Taseer was murdered for speaking out against Asia Bibi’s wrongful incarceration and Pakistan’s problematic relationship with the blasphemy law in the PPC. Governor Taseer’s assassin, Mumtaz Qadri was later sentenced to death and hanged as a result of a Supreme Court ruling. Khadim Rizvi termed Qadri a hero for his actions and declared Taseer’s murder justified in the eyes of Shariah law7. Rizvi has since used the divisive issue of blasphemy laws to gain popular support by organising massive and often violent street protests that make demands such as the resignation of sitting cabinet members8. There is video evidence of him spewing hate speech against the judges, generals and politicians of Pakistan, even going so far as encouraging mutiny only two months ago by the average soldier against generals, all because Asia Bibi’s (a Christian woman) blasphemy conviction was overturned based on a lack of evidence9. Following a spate of violent protests after which a deal was struck with the government (which included a stipulation that the state would not press charges against Rizvi or any of the leaders of the protest), Rizvi was placed under house arrest by the government after he announced another protest and he is currently out on bail. For the purposes of this case, we looked at tweets from Khadim Rizvi’s personal account on twitter before removal, videos from his verified YouTube account and other videos of speeches available on YouTube. All videos analysed for data have been translated and transcribed and are included in the appendix for further assessment, if needed.

Twitter

To date, Khadim Rizvi has had two genuine accounts on twitter, @KhadimRizviReal and @RealKHR. The first was a verified account on twitter and hence its authenticity was confirmed, while the second account was created almost five months after the removal of the first one. The second twitter account is not verified as of yet but is now denoted as the official twitter handle by Khadim Rizvi’s verified YouTube channel, where many of his

7 Who is Khadim Hussain Rizvi? by Kalbe Ali. Published December 03, 2017. Retrieved July 07, 2019. https://www.dawn.com/news/1374182 8 Pakistani Cleric's Detention Draws Mixed Reactions by Madeeha Anwar. Published November 30, 2018. Retrieved July 25, 2019. https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/pakistani-clerics-detention-draws- mixed-reactions 9 Pakistan orders release of cleric who led Asia Bibi protests by AFP. Published May 14, 2019. Retrieved July 25, 2019. https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/pakistan-orders-release-of-cleric-who-led-asia- bibi-protests/article27130195.ece speeches are published. Hence through social media verification systems, we can identify both twitter accounts and run by someone who represents Khadim Hussain Rizvi. Khadim Rizvi originally joined twitter in 2018, with the exact date not certain however, due to the lack of information available with twitter on suspended accounts. The message on twitter although the same, was very different in its style from the one observed on the streets and in videos on Facebook and YouTube. Obviously, a missing element is Rizvi’s missing rhetoric and tone, which he uses in all of his speeches to rouse crowds after glorifying murder and violence and sometimes even hinting at his supporters losing control. This change of tactic is possibly related to self-preservation on twitter; risking more inflammatory content would only have resulted in an earlier suspension, whether through being reported by other users or being identified as a proponent of hate speech by twitter independently. Many journalists and members of the academic community were following Rizvi, not out of support for his views but as a means of observing his activities and that of his party, given that his protests were blacked out on television and other forms of media. As seen below, the tweets from Khadim Rizvi often take a pseudo-rational position, appealing a lot to the perceived ideological perspective of Pakistan and placing Rizvi and his party as staunch defenders of this far-right Islamo-nationalist ideology. Khadim Rizvi’s first official account on twitter did not last for too long10; we scraped the account for tweets on the day that it was suspended, November 2, 2018. A total of 115 tweets from September 6, 2018 (roughly the date around which the account was created) to November 2, 2018 were extracted, after which the account was suspended. On the surface, a hundred tweets over the course of two months does not reflect too much activity, however, this is consistent with the other official account we unearthed towards the end of the research, which featured only 113 tweets from March 2019, when it was created, to July 2019, when it the tweets were extracted. While the data set for the second twitter account will also be attached in the appendix, after a detailed examination of the tweets on the new handle, it was determined that they had little relevance with the case of Asia Bibi, or the blasphemy law. This is why only tweets from the first handle are discussed in this section. It is interesting to note that the first account existed without any problems until the Supreme Court judgement on the Asia Bibi case and the subsequent protests. As we will observe in greater detail below, the tweets within this account have no direct instances of

10 Khadim Hussain Rizvi's Twitter account suspended by Dawn.com. Published November 04, 2018. Retrieved July 25, 2019. https://www.dawn.com/news/1443541 hate speech, and yet it was removed at the behest of the Pakistani government lodging a request with twitter for it to be removed11. This would imply that the content itself is often not the main concern for twitter in suspending accounts; how other users react to these accounts or whether complaints are filed is what primarily determines twitter’s content removal and account suspension policy. This is not entirely inconsistent with twitter’s terms and conditions – both reports/flagging and posting objectionable content are grounds for removal12, however there is a question of whether twitter is doing enough to counter hate speech, if its efforts to remove content come only after users have viewed the content and then reported it. After such content is posted on a social media website, any account with a large enough following can reach thousands of people in minutes and hence a reactionary attempt to remove such content is not as effective as platforms would make it out to be. It is clear that the account was looking to lay a solid case to support both the party and Khadim Hussain Rizvi himself through several means; it set a specific ideological perspective, highlighted a need to find fault with the status quo, to identify TLP and Rizvi as a means to fix the problem and also used religion as a means to provide the call to action for all those who would be hesitant to take the streets for the party or its cause. As self- proclaimed defenders of the Islamic cause or the cause of Pakistan, Khadim Rizvi made himself an authority for the public on recognising when outrage against the government, its institutions or specific people like Asia Bibi was acceptable.

Sowing division/insulting other religions, casts, creed, ethnicities or races

Apart from comments on the tweeting style of the account, there are observations about the content that are made below, using tweets that substantiate the assertions made in this section as examples. The first five tweets – in Urdu – were posted on September 6, which is Pakistan’s Defence Day and were thus related to ideological questions regarding the country. Asking to defend the “ideological border” of the country alongside geographical boundaries, the account also goes on to explain how TLP defends the ideological foundations of the country and thus is calling for greater support as a result of its own ideology.

11 Khadim Hussain Rizvi’s Twitter account was suspended on govt’s request: officials by Samaa Digital. Published November 5, 2018. Retrieved July 25, 2019. https://www.samaa.tv/news/2018/11/khadim-hussain- rizvis-twitter-account-was-suspended-on-govts-request-officials/ 12 Twitter Terms of Service. Retrieved June 24, 2019. https://twitter.com/en/tos In this way, TLP and Khadim Rizvi have linked their ideological trajectory as the same one as the one that led to the formation of Pakistan – whether this is actually the case is not relevant – by using the religious-nationalist sentiment, Khadim Rizvi is imploring supporters to join the cause if they stand to support the country or Islam, equating both ideologies to his own even though the three might not be the same. While the five tweets analysed here are more general in nature, the tweets below all directly address the Asia Bibi case and have been deconstructed to identify how Rizvi sows division through his activity on social media.

“If Asia is found not guilty despite her confession in public and before trial court and acquitted after 9 years, it can put a big question mark on the decision. It means there is something rotten in judicial procedure or there is some third umpire making decisions.” – November 1, 2018.

The above tweet specifically points to the failure of the courts, alluding to a conspiracy to protect blasphemers even though there is no actual proof behind this assertion – one which he also mentions in many of his speeches on YouTube.

“The acquittal of Asia is not just denial of justice but also a kind of fulfilment of demands by opponents of blasphemy law as well as advocates of unbridled freedom of (hate) speech.” – November 1, 2018.

Establishing who the opponents are very clearly is another feature in the statements of Rizvi; all those that support changing or repealing the blasphemy law, and those that advocate free speech. The tweet even goes as far as to equate freedom of speech with hate speech, which is ironic in the extreme. A known proponent of hate speech is shifting the label of hate onto his opponents.

“Had Asia been punished under 295 C, the islamophobes and neo-imperialists would have been silenced once (and) for all. Unfortunately government has not shown courage to displease secular-capitalist nexus.” – November 1, 2018.

Equating the Asia Bibi case as the solution to all ideological battles identified by Rizvi through his speeches in public (available on social media) is another observation – this false equivalence has been seen in other statements of the leader as well, on both twitter and YouTube. Using this argument of fighting this ideological battle adds a sense of urgency to Rizvi’s narrative, and all those that support him are implored to fight now, before it is too late. “TLP has no connection with the miscreants, trying to disrupt peace. We're a peaceful organization and determined to continue peaceful struggle. It's the responsibility of the government to check those miscreants. Our workers are not involved in any activity to harm our own country.” – November 1, 2018.

The tweet above is one of the more interesting pieces of content coming out from Rizvi. After the protests in the country following the acquittal took a violent turn, the government started arresting followers of TLP after which Khadim Rizvi and other leaders of the movement completely disowned the violence and those that were perpetrating it. Saying on one hand that his supporters are too passionate to not respond with violence, and on the other completely denying that violence during the protests was linked to TLP is a stark contradiction.

“Even if the entire world puts weight behind Asia, no compromise should have been made on confessed blasphemy. Who has swapped self-esteem and earnest faith for secularised decision and why?” – November 2, 2018.

The last tweet identified here is important, because it claims that the question of blasphemy in the Asia case is settled through a confession, which is not the case at all. Asia Bibi has always professed her innocence in the ten years of court proceedings. This is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue and make his own claims more valid through misinformation.

Justification/glorification of violence

“When courts go sterile in producing justice, sons like Mumtaz Qadri and Ghazi ilm Din Shaheed are born to sublime mothers. When atrocities trespass moral codes, divine justice comes down to establish the writ of creator of the universe.” – October 31, 2018.

One of the first tweets on the Asia Bibi judgement, Rizvi not only glorifies two convicted murders for their crimes in this tweet, he also establishes the use of violence as a legitimate means to seeking justice when the decisions of courts are not seen as acceptable.

YouTube

Khadim Rizvi has a verified YouTube channel, that disseminates videos of sermons and speeches by the TLP leader. The channel has 185,850 subscribers and has 1095 uploaded videos since its creation in May 2016. The videos on YouTube provided a deeper understanding of the context of statements made by Khadim Rizvi; compared to the tweets, the content in this instance was more inflammatory and direct and would be more likely to incite violence in the real world. Common elements in the content included a confrontational style of speech, often resorting to screaming out his points in rage, referring to violent instances in both Pakistani and Islamic history, a distrust of the state and its institutions, sowing division amongst religious groups through insults and slurs and through spreading untruths about the cases in question to provide a rationale for his arguments. Additionally, as on twitter, justification and glorification of violence, Indirect incitement or alluding to the threat of violence from his supporters, and directly asking his supporters to take to the streets and be ready to give their lives for the cause were all observations drawn from the empirical data available. These key findings have been elaborated on below.

Sowing division/insulting other religions, casts, creed, ethnicities or races

“This is why, even if its Obama, or Modi, or some other pig, don’t get this wrong..Modi drinks the piss of cows, he can drink the piss of donkeys too, why should we care about that?”

A key element among all data observed in both cases, was the use of insults and slurs of the other community, in this case minorities in Pakistan and other religions in general, which dehumanises those that are being insulted. Constant reminders of how the other groups are lesser beings somehow is an indication of one’s own superiority and blatantly bigoted. This helps in increasing the divide between communities and coupled with the justification of violence and both indirect and direct incitement to violence (discussed in more detail below) can be used to get supporters to commit acts of violence in the real world. “Someone because of whom one of our lions (Mumtaz Qadri) got himself hanged, calling her a pig would be an insult to the pig. I don’t have a word that describes (her).”

While Rizvi consistently states that there is no forgiveness for committing blasphemy, what he willingly chooses to ignore in all of his speeches is that none of those he views as blasphemers including Asia Bibi and Salmaan Taseer never actually committed any blasphemy. The Supreme Court cited a lack of evidence in the case of the former and the latter publicly asked for a review of the blasphemy law; he never committed any blasphemy himself, nor advocated freeing those that did. He merely pointed to the inherent flaws in the law and its potential for abuse as a result of false accusations and died for expressing this opinion, at the hands of someone who Rizvi openly recognises as a hero and dubs a martyr. Alongside this, Rizvi has on multiple occasions dubbed Prime Minister Imran Khan a Jewish agent – using it as a derogatory term. These deliberate obfuscations help in legitimising his own narrative and denounce the one being put forth by all those that disagree.

“When he talked shit, they said Salmaan Taseer was a blasphemer. Why else would they?..Obviously he said something. That’s why we say that, keep your tongues locked when it comes to Allah and His Prophet.”

Allusion of incitement to violence

“At eight am in the morning, all devoted followers of the religion should take to the streets..And if this decision is taken to release one who disrespected the Prophet, then be prepared and stay in the field of implementation to give any and every sacrifice that is required of you until the centre (KH and other leaders) do not say otherwise.”

Khadim Rizvi’s speeches usually feature an angry tone, which implies he is constantly offended, and uses a lot of poetry and colourful language to explain his point. He also uses a fair number of examples (or supposed examples) from religious history to make his case. He often points to the history of Pakistan’s independence as a means to draw a reaction from the crowd. The key difference here however, is the difference in language; Urdu and Punjabi often have sentences that are insinuating something without saying it outright. For instance, in the quote below he talks about losing control, but never states what this means. However, given by the fact that Rizvi praises the murderer of Governor Salmaan Taseer for his actions, losing control might in this context also imply something similar.

Glorification of violence

“Here if a horse loses control it gets well wishes from the Prophet, if a Muslim loses control, imagine how many blessings he will receive.”

A key feature in many speeches made by Rizvi is a recollection of Islamic history, often many of its more brutal examples as a justification of the arguments being made. The above quote is a bit out of context on its own, but many of Rizvi’s arguments are long- winded and often trail off with a fantastical story of the past in between, using the end of the story as a justification of his argument. In this particular instance, Rizvi is talking about a horse that lost control and rushed to defend the Prophet and was given his blessings, which is why the people in attendance and ‘true’ Muslims should do the same.

“You (politicians) looted the people. Tear the stomachs and take out the money from those who took these loans. Take the money back from them. We didn’t take any loans. They are worried that if Labbaik comes (into power), since we have not taken any loans, we will tear their stomachs and make sure they give the country’s money back. Yes. Exactly. Only those that are ready to give their life for the cause are sitting here.”

An inherent distrust of the state and its institutions is visible in the content extracted from YouTube. From lambasting judges, politicians and army generals, to claiming that intelligence agencies are in attendance at his rallies to observe him, Rizvi consistently implies that the government has lost the trust of the people and is assisting in ensuring that the country drifts away from its ideological principles – at the behest of foreign states and actors no less. This distrust can later be used as a means of inciting followers against state machinery.

“They will talk about Mumtaz Qadri’s bravery for centuries. And Ghazi Tanveer’s bravery.”

One of the more dangerous elements in his speeches, Rizvi, consistently glorifies the acts of convicted murderers, both in the past and present. Three prime examples include Ghazi Ilm-ud-Din – a man convicted for murdering someone over the blasphemy question during British rule in the Indian Subcontinent before partition. Another individual Rizvi dubs a hero is of course, Mumtaz Qadri, who was been talked about al length above. And lastly, another ‘hero’ for the cause seems to be Ghazi Tanveer, a man convicted of the murder of a member of the Ahmaddiyya community – a minority branch of Islam that is seen by other sects as borderline blasphemous – in the UK. All these individuals have in common that they murdered someone on the basis of religion. Glorifying their actions only implies that Rizvi wants others to replicate the crimes they committed.

“..And those too were proper stabs. Not weak ones. Deep stabs into him. *Makes the stabbing action and smiles*..He said that when they grabbed him, he put his foot on (the victim’s) face and then – these are his own words, very enjoyable – he said, Maulana, I broke his face like you break a plate (with my foot).”

Justification/glorification of violence

“And all of you who are sitting here, your faces must show anger (over what happened) and your eyes should be bloodshot. We are sitting here to give our life for the cause anyway.”

Rizvi uses religion in a way where he equates respect for the religion with outrage over Asia Bibi’s exoneration. His speeches imply that to not be offended would be tantamount to being a false Muslim or a hypocrite, and not taking to the streets to support his cause is almost as criminal as the actions of the judges that allowed for her release. He also states that the Muslim community is offended over this issue as fact. All supporters are implored to be ready to give their lives for the cause, just as he himself is ready. How they are to give their lives for the cause is not clear, but by bringing this idea of sacrifice into the narrative, Rizvi is preparing his supporters for open confrontation; in all likelihood, to pit them against state authorities.

Clear Incitement to violence

“Enough! Now whoever will sit here (with us in support) firstly, they will not speak to one another unless absolutely important, and secondly, anyone who is here to see a show still has the permission, they can leave if they want. And only those that want to get beheaded for the Prophet… (raise your hands)”

The most dangerous aspect of Mr Rizvi’s speeches however, is direct incitement to violence, which he has carried out on numerous occasions to serve his own narrative. Asking supporters to be willing to do whatever they must to get Asia Bibi to face justice, Rizvi has also incited followers against judges and army generals and politicians, as has been discussed above. Rizvi has consistently stated in the speeches unearthed that the only punishment for Asia Bibi’s perceived crimes is death; but he never states that the state must carry this sentence out. Given the history of blasphemy laws in Pakistan and those accused being lynched at the hands of mobs on several occasions, a lack of clarity on who must act as executioner in this case implies that Rizvi wants blood, regardless of what his supporters might do to get him his wish.

“Kill her there and then. Enough, nothing more to say. The problem here is completely different.” Crowd chants as response: “Remove head from the body (behead), remove head from the body.”

Summary As is clear from the data analysed above, Khadim Rizvi’s social media activity on both twitter and YouTube is inflammatory and divisive, often stepping into the domain of veiled and open threats of violence and a consistent call to action for his supporters. This means that not only is he inciting hate against members of minority groups and those he identifies as blasphemers and their perceived sympathisers in government, he is also urging his followers to take to the streets and take on the state to get their demands met. Even if he disassociated himself with the violence surrounding the protests in the Asia Bibi case, after all the charged speeches made, did he really expect anything different?

Case 2: Britain’s Islamophobia Problem

As mentioned in the methodology, the second case did not feature a specific instance of hate speech, but instead looked to provide a wide array of known proponents of far-right parties and their ability to get their narrative across through social media platforms such as YouTube and Twitter. The UK has several well-known far-right personalities that share a common distrust of Islam and tend to tour the narrative of “Britain for the British” as is evident in the videos available on YouTube. With safeguards of gatekeeping on the media eroded as a result of the rise of social media (Napoli, 2018), many proponents of far-right ideologies have gained publicity due to their own pages on social media websites such as Facebook, YouTube or twitter or through having their content reshared by supporters or other users on these platforms. Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins are prime examples of this; both these far-right personalities have had a large following for their views online. Both Robinson and Hopkins were focused on in this case; the sort of content they have put out, their personal statements through speeches, interviews or text (in the form of tweets) available online were looked at, and a concrete case was made on how these individuals misuse the spotlight they are given on social media platforms to sow dissent and hatred in the public. As in the case above, online news publications and websites were used as a secondary source of data where necessary to support the empirical data extracted from both YouTube and twitter. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, known across the world as Tommy Robinson, is a far-right activist known for his anti-Muslim views and was recently sentenced to nine months in prison for contempt of court. He is a former founder of the English Defence League, the Britain First Party and PEGIDA UK. According to interviews available on YouTube and included in the dataset, Mr Robinson claims that he was “convicted for journalism”, while the case against him is centred on the fact that he shared a Facebook live video containing information regarding a case that had reporting restrictions on it, with limitations on the information to be publicised13. There is also the assertion that Robinson was encouraging vigilante justice against those he was filing on Facebook Live14. Robinson was arrested

13 Tommy Robinson was not ‘convicted of journalism’ by Luke Gittos. Published July 16, 2019. Retrieved July 23, 2019. https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/16/tommy-robinson-was-not-convicted-of- journalism/ 14 Tommy Robinson encouraged 'vigilante action' in Facebook Live by BBC. Published July 9, 2019. Retrieved July 23, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48925356 because he was looking to interview one of those accused. He was later charged with contempt of court and sentenced to nine months in prison with most of it suspended15. Based on the videos of interviews, Tommy Robinson denies that his viewpoint is far-right, and shies away from the term of being a neo-Nazi, claiming that he hates them.

Twitter

The only far-right twitter account from Britain under scrutiny was the verified twitter handle of Katie Hopkins, @KTHopkins. A total of 759 tweets were looked at for the period of two months, between May 23, 2019 and July 23, 2019. Tweets were scraped using Vicinitas, which also offered some insights into the activity of the account. The tweet extraction website scraped a total of 3189 tweets starting from October 24, 2018, out of which only the last two months were looked at. However, what this showed is that Hopkins averages a prolific 13.3 tweets per day and gets roughly 2.7k engagements on each post. Most tweets engaged with the current events of the day, with a particular populist slant and a predictable reaction to each trend or event. Out of the 759 tweets analysed, almost half were retweets of her own tweets in the past or retweeting others that quoted her tweets. These were side-lined to avoid a misrepresentation in the results. Anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant rhetoric, with support for all populist leaders around the world including Prime Minister Modi of India, Marine Le Pen in France, Vlaams Belang in Belgium and President Bolsanaro of Brazil were common elements in the posts extracted. Particular adulation was reserved for Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. Another common element was fat-shaming and sneering at liberal perspectives. A disdain for traditional media sources and framing the hate speech question as one of curbing the right to freedom of expression were also commonplace in the content extracted. A more detailed examination of the key findings from her twitter activity are elaborated on below.

15 Tommy Robinson case: Supporters hurl beer cans as protests erupt after former EDL leader found in contempt of court by Peter Stubley. Published July 5, 2019. Retrieved July 23, 2019. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-case-live-updates-result-contempt-old- bailey-court-latest-news-a8989236.html Sowing division/insulting other religions, casts, creed, ethnicities or races

“1) Koran teacher, 40, repeatedly rubbed 11-year-old girl & fondled her chest The law: no prison time ’cos his wife is cr*p at English 2) #TommyRobinson repeats information already in the public domain regarding Muslim paedos The law: 9 months in jail” – July 14, 2019.

Regarding Islamophobia and hate speech more specifically, one of the first points of interest was setting up an ‘us versus them’ narrative, where Islam was consistently depicted as the other, a foreign and unwanted religion ideology that threatened the foundation of what Britain is really supposed to be.

“Handy reminder. White Brits will be a minority in Birmingham in 2021. A Muslim majority will not tolerate pride. Enjoy dancing in your pants with your Percy poking out whilst you can. #BirminghamPride2019.” – May 25, 2019.

The tweets were also seen to be framing the problem as urgent. Referring to London as “Londonistan” and stating that the UK will have a Muslim majority population by 2050 looks to depict a situation where the ‘other’ culture or ideology is winning, hence necessitating a response from herself and her supporters.

“God-willing/jihadi-failing I am going to be alive to see Trump in the White House Boris in Number 10 Netanyahu building Israel Bolsanaro, Salvini, Orban, Kaczyński, & the Right Minded bringing strength in depth What a time to be alive The fightback by proud nations is on.” – July 10, 2019.

Another related point is unity of the populist far-right narrative. Support for parties around the world and for far-right actors such as Tommy Robinson within the UK as well was seen very often in the tweets of Katie Hopkins. Support for Prime Minister of Modi in India during the Indian elections, Bolsanaro and others in the far-right spectrum all over the world was seen throughout the tweets posted.

“Next time someone tells you ‘the law is the law’ remember #TommyRobinson. The law is whatever the Establishment wish to interpret it to be. #TommyRobinson will not survive time inside. This is how the British cleanse their Enemies of the State. Sentencing 11 July.” – July 05, 2019.

“#TommyRobinson will spend just over 2 months in prison for causing anxiety to majority Pakistani Muslim paedophiles outside court. This is the State of Britain. This is the state versus Tommy Robinson America: this is coming your way.” – July 13, 2019.

Hopkins also always makes a point to identify Islam and Muslims as the culprits in her tweets about rising crime in both London and the rest of the UK. The idea that it is the influx of Muslims into the country that are making streets unsafe is one which repeats itself often in the tweets scraped.

“Some new arrivals ARE feral humans. I stand by those words. Defend the country you love. #MAGA #Trump2020” – July 20, 2019.

Using slurs such as feral humans or referring to migrants as cockroaches and calling for a “final solution” to the problem of Muslim immigrants depicts a deliberate attempt to divide the public into groups and also fan the flames of religious division in the country. Particular ire is reserved for the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, who Katie Hopkins has publicly denounced on many occasions.

“Londonistan under little Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan. Watch two males throw acid into a car and the occupants run out to try to escape their burns. Lawless Hackney. London. 2019. #SaferInSyria (Credit @MotorcycleTheft - more to follow on these guys)” – June 23, 2019

“Far-Right. A term as ubiquitous as gluten-free. And as benign as a result. Stop devaluing our language.” – June 03, 2019.

Finally, there is an observable tendency to double down on any statement perceived as problematic. Any comments she has been chastised for in the past, she stands by staunchly.

“To the twitter / leftist mob / studio-gimps Know this. I do not fear you or your labels. Call me what you wish. Islamophobe. Bigot. Racist. Vile. It matters not. What matters is the fight back for our Christian culture we desperately need to defend” – July 20, 2019.

YouTube

The data on YouTube showed similar instances of hate speech to the ones unearthed from looking at Katie Hopkins’ account as a far-right commentator on social media, but there were significant differences as well and led to a deeper understanding of the narrative portrayed and put forth by these individuals. One common element among all instances of hate speech looked at in this case was that there was a consistency in the arguments of individuals, meaning that they regularly used the same line of reasoning up to even using the same example as before to establish their stance. These arguments also tended to overlap; in many videos, arguments put forth by Robinson were also repeated by Hopkins and vice versa. Many of the videos under analysis were long interviews or speeches and allowed for a closer examination of the narrative of the far-right in the UK. The key findings have been elaborated on below.

Sowing division/insulting other religions, casts, creed, ethnicities or races

“..I come from a country where there is an Islamic takeover going on. I come from a country where my daughters, our daughters are targeted by Islamic jihadists.” – Katie Hopkins

“..which I first thought was a Pakistani problem. I saw the Pakistani community showed a hostility towards everyone who wasn't Pakistani. And then, only after growing up and learning Islam, I understand there was the segregation of separation taught to them through Islam.” – Tommy Robinson

One of the first things to notice on videos extracted from YouTube was the way both Hopkins and Robinson framed the debate of the issue around them. The narrative in all of the videos is one where it’s the British versus the Muslims (the two have been problematically identified as mutually exclusive in many instances) if one is looking at it from an actor perspective or the Jewish and Christian faiths against Islam if the debate surrounded more ideological issues. By framing it as an ‘us versus them’ issue, far-right propagandists beseech their social group to join their cause because to not do so would be tantamount to getting taking over by the other, more undesirable group. This was seen in Hopkins tweets on twitter as well, and usually this debate also attempts to bring a sense of urgency into the issue i.e. the threat is very real, currently present and needs a solution now, before it is ‘too late’.

“And if you end up in a prison for causing anxiety to Muslim paedophiles, majority Pakistani Muslim paedophiles?” – Katie Hopkins

“..reporting restrictions are regularly breached, okay? People get a small fine. Now, it's only the fact that I was talking about Muslim paedophile gangs. Those resulted in me being in prison for 13 months.” – Tommy Robinson

Both far-right proponents take great pains to consistently reiterate that the threat comes from Islam and Muslims and each speech or interview has consistently mentioned this fact. By labelling who the enemy is and identifying them for potential followers or current supporters, the movement seeks to sow division among social groups. In fact, this reminder serves a dual purpose – alongside reminding the movement of who the enemy is, the fact that the ideological battle is with Islam can be used to rile up the other social group as well i.e Muslims, to increase the chance of conflict rising up as a result. Both Robinson and Hopkins mostly discuss the rise in crime in relation to crimes committed by Muslims, and each time such an instance is brought up, the common practice is to consistently say the word ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’ as many times as possible to drill home the point.

“I wrote a column that compared migrants across the - we need to give it reference...cockroaches. I said they're like cockroaches because they have an enduring nature. They seem to be able to survive no matter what. We were taught in schools that the only creature that can survive a nuclear holocaust is cockroaches. That still applies today.” – Katie Hopkins

Interviewer: They are human beings, like you and me. With a different religion. Katie Hopkins: No, sorry. We disagree..They're not human beings. They're feral humans. I do not want them near my daughters. I'm sorry, I don't agree with you at all.

Another common element throughout both cases on all platforms, as mentioned in previous sections, individuals that indulge in hate speech often use insults and slurs against the opposing social group in a bid to dehumanise and thus make it easier to hate them. Ms Hopkins has used terms such as looking for a “final solution” to the problem of Muslim immigration and when asked to respond to the idea that these comments are racist, she usually responds with a faux deconstruction of the term in question and how it should not offend anyone.

“We have de facto Sharia law in the UK right now..That is a bizarre situation to live in” – Katie Hopkins

“I never understood it until I read the Quran. I never understood until I read so many passages and so many verses saying do not be friends with the Christians or the Jews..They are hostile towards us.” – Tommy Robinson

The use of sweeping statements aside, the far-right movement in the UK, judging by the two actors being studied, relies on misinformation as a tool to construct their arguments and score points against those that oppose them. The use of misinformation helps in establishing a case where fact might not be able to. Spreading misinformation also helps in increasing the urgency with which the perceived problem is manifesting itself, to provide a call to action for supporters. It makes any argument sound more fantastic than it is originally and those that are not aware of the fact can be misled relatively easily. As many of the supporters of the far-right only consume content that fits with their worldview, the problem of misinformation is particularly dangerous because it becomes tougher to separate fact from fiction when so many individuals internalise the same lie.

“Where I come from, you have to pay for your propaganda on the BBC..Our BBC state broadcaster is a propaganda tool for the state. No question. And I have to pay for it, as do 20 million other people, possibly a little bit like me who know that it's an utter bunch of nonsense coming from the left.” – Katie Hopkins “You can spread your fake news live for the corporatist globalist media, wherever you want, no one trusts you, no one believes you. That's why everyone follows me.” – Tommy Robinson

Another common element among the videos was a distrust of “mainstream media” and news outlets that do not represent far-right perspective. This distrust of the “leftist mainstream media” helps in establishing a connection with members of the public that agree with this viewpoint and in spreading misinformation because when refuted, proponents of hate speech often rely on the notion that they are the real truth-speakers while traditional news outlets are looking to spread a specific narrative. This narrative of the mainstream press is supposedly geared towards helping the ‘other’ – in this case Muslims – triumph in their aims to take over the country and thus must be rejected outright.

“If you wouldn't mind explaining to the public, why exactly platforming dangerous religious extremist speakers..in the UK is a problem..wouldn’t you therefore agree that from that very line of logic, the right to free speech or to speech is not absolute when it undermines security, and undermines society and therefore you kind of contradicted your very own point..” – Point of information posed to Katie Hopkins at an Oxford Union debate

“No, no, my conviction was for causing anxiety to Muslim people, that's my conviction.” – Tommy Robinson when asked about his case outside the court. He was sentenced for contempt of court, not causing anxiety to a group, as he claims.

The question above was never answered by Katie Hopkins in her speech. She instead started talking about Jihadis and that they come back to the UK and the state does nothing about this. As is evident above, in interviews or speeches where an individual might be asking tough questions, the standard response is to always deflect and discuss an argument or an example that one feels more comfortable with. Whenever a contradiction or inconsistency is pointed out, the standard response is to deflect and indulge in ‘whataboutery’ – which deals with changing the subject by using arguments that identify a different problem or issue. Other instruments, such as using humour to deflect or turning the question and instead asking a different one from the one who asked it are common elements seen throughout the data.

“I've been the target of a jihadi plot to behead me. I was, a lady wanted my head as a wedding gift from her jihadi husband..And she wanted my head because she thought it would be a good way of silencing me as the biggest bitch in Britain.” – Katie Hopkins

“..I know, by doing what I do, that that moment (death) will come. And I know that. And I chose that.” – Tommy Robinson

Lastly, one narrative that was observed directly as a result of Robinson’s court proceedings due to which he was sentenced to time in prison, was constantly reiterating that any time spent in prison would lead to his death, even though a previous stint behind bars offered up no threat to Robinson’s life. Before going to prison on that occasion, Tommy Robinson had claimed that he would be killed in prison as well. Katie Hopkins has also alluded to death threats made to her in the past and also stated that Robinson’s incarceration might mean that she was next. Implying that they might be made martyrs for the cause elicits more support from among followers seemingly and has been relied as a tactic by politicians and notable personalities in the past.

Summary What is clear from the data extracted on both YouTube and twitter, is that notable personalities of the far-right movement in the UK use their clout on social media platforms to spread hate and a divisive, predominantly, anti-Islam rhetoric. They do this on many occasions without censure from the platforms they post on, at least until the government or other users step in by reporting violations of the terms and conditions of platforms. One of the most important ways to do this in a country that has strict laws against hate speech, is by framing the debate as one about the freedom of expression – they claim that this freedom should not be equated to hate speech. Relying on terms such as “cockroaches” and “feral humans”, proponents of hate such as Hopkins and Robinson still somehow inexplicably maintain that they are neither far-right nor racist and routinely use misinformation and deflection as a means to fight off any criticism.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

Hate speech on social media platforms by far-right groups, the narratives of this hate speech and whether platforms are doing enough to counter the problem on their websites were the central issues discussed in this research. The foundational premise of the study is centred on establishing what hate speech really is and looking to understand what we mean when we say Islamic extremism or the far-right, both of which were looked at in tandem throughout the course of this research. How the far-right uses the Internet, which affordances they exploit, such as anonymity, permanence and others to further their narrative and gain more support amongst sympathisers was discussed in the literature section of the study, alongside the fundamental question of policing the internet and how platforms should and have shouldered more responsibility on the issue of removing hate content online. The laws to counter hate are in place, both at the state level and internationally, however hate speech somehow continues to thrive online. Given that platforms have moved into the field of curating content, even going as far as to recognise the problem of hate speech and making attempts to remove it from their platforms at the behest of states – essentially agreeing that the expectation to remove content is not wholly unrealistic – surely they must take the blame whenever they are seen to be failing in this responsibility. Given that their efforts have failed to counter the spread of hate speech, technology companies must look do better in this respect. Their vague terms and conditions, a failure to sometimes act on reports filed by other users, using the term ‘platform’ as a means of waiving liability off of themselves while simultaneously reaping the benefits that comes from being a two-sided market were all reasons for platforms to take the blame if hate speech continues to proliferate on their websites. The research question of the study, what makes social media a suitable breeding ground for the prevalence of hate speech online, was divided into two parts: a) How do known perpetrators of hate speech operate on social media platforms to further their narrative? b) How well are platforms dealing with the responsibility to take hate content off their websites? In simple terms, the question revolved around why far-right individuals tend to sue the internet for the proliferation of hate speech, and one major argument that came about as a result of the data was that in addition to the increased reach of the internet, and providing space for narratives which were not present before the advent of the internet, social media could be used to spread divisive content with relative ease, given that platforms are not doing enough to counter the spread of this content on their websites. The study used the ethnographic case study approach, where the researcher used his own experience to identify hate speech on two platforms, twitter and YouTube in three different languages; English, Urdu and Punjabi. By looking at three actors from Pakistan and the United Kingdom, Khadim Hussain Rizvi, Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson, the research attempted to present a holistic view of the various types of hate speech existing on the internet, to try and truly understand the narrative in both developed and developing countries. Time and space were both limitations in this research; due to being a Master’s thesis with a specific word limit and a limited deadline, a lot of additional data gathered and interpreted could not be included in this research. Hopefully future research will look at this problem in more detail and identify how platforms can also look to improve upon their removal processes when it comes to hate speech. A fundamental difference between this research and others before it is that it looked to deconstruct the narrative of hate speech of both far-right white nationalists and Islamic extremists, to identify the rhetorical tools they use in getting their arguments across and to increase their support base. This analysis of the narratives disseminated and what they might be used for has been missing in many studies of increased proliferation of hate speech of the internet. The existence of hate speech on digital spaces, such as on twitter and YouTube in these two cases, tells us of the exigent problem that the rise of social media has led to; as perhaps a first step in taking greater measures to counter it through further research and policymaking. This research shows that even though sometimes hidden through filter bubbles or algorithms through recommendation-based systems, the proliferation of hate speech is a very real problem on social media platforms and technology companies must improve their processes to keep such content off their websites. The more visible instances were included into the data set, but that does not mean that there is hate speech out there that might be even worse; more divisive, or inciting violence in a more convincing fashion. Another thing highlighted by both cases is the existence of hate speech not only in filter bubbles, but publicly available if one knew where to look; going through the actor-centred approach made it easy to find instances of hate speech, as these individuals are known for their controversial comments anyway. Even though figures like Katie Hopkins and Khadim Hussain Rizvi are known perpetrators of hate speech, platforms have not ensured that their statements are kept offline. The debate of de-platforming in many cases is not relevant – Tommy Robinson for instance has been de-platformed off of twitter, and yet his narrative continues to exist through subsidiaries such as Ms Hopkins. Additionally, this also poses a significant question for future studies; if well-known characters in far-right movements across the world can propagate their divisive narrative on social media, how many unknown far-right propagandists, anonymous accounts, spam handles, bots and trolls are currently spewing hatred on platforms such as twitter and YouTube? To get to the bottom of this question, further research is quite obviously needed, however one can safely presume that this number far exceeds the estimates put forth by studies that only talk about filter bubbles and hate speech lying undetected through the help of algorithms. Hate speech that is more easily accessible is arguably a bigger threat and should be included in the ambit of further research. There is an argument to be made regarding this content not fulfilling the criteria of platforms as hate speech; maybe instead it is seen as an expression of freedom of opinion. This interestingly, was also how far-right individuals in the UK framed their arguments; that the bid to de-platform them was a means of subverting their rights and liberties. It might even be that this content has not been scrutinised well enough so far. But either way, the platforms are to blame because they are not doing enough to counter this narrative. Another reason for this failure to remove this content might relate to the problem of bigger fish; social websites are inundated with content, and there are various degrees of hate speech; the more obvious racist remarks or direct incitement to violence may be removed, but the more minor infractions get left out. However, as this study shows, the narrative within the content still online is by no means completely harmless and did often slip into the realm of direct incitement to violence as well, in the case of Islamic extremists in Pakistan at the very least. This argument then, of platforms having a lot on their plate an being unable to remove all content does not hold much weight, considering these are known proponents of hate speech that have a large following. Perhaps platforms fear a backlash if content from known personalities is removed and neglect to act on their responsibility simply because it is easier to look the other way. Of course, this is only conjecture and more research on the platforms will be needed to determine exactly why they are failing in their duty. Nevertheless, what this study has showed is that hate speech exists on social media platforms and technology companies that run these websites take the blame for this. Bibliography Akdeniz, Y. (2002). Controlling Illegal and Harmful Content. In D. S. Wall (Ed.), Crime and the Internet (pp. 113-140). London: Routledge. Ashour, O. (2010). Online De-Radicalization? Countering Violent Extremist Narratives Message, Messenger and Media Strategy. Perspectives on Terrorism, 4(6), 15-19. Atton, C. (2006). Far-right media on the internet: culture, discourse and power. New Media and Society, 8(4), 573-587. Awan, I. (2016). Islamophobia on Social Media: A Qualitative Analysis of the Facebook’s Walls of Hate . International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 10(1), 1-20. Ballon, P. (2009). Control and Value in Mobile Communications: A Political Economy of the Reconfiguration of Business Models in the European Mobile Industry. Network and Platfrom Economics. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1331439. Ballon, P., & Van Heesvelde, E. (2011). ICT platforms and regulatory concerns in Europe. Telecommunications Policy, 35, 702-714. Baloch, H., Xynou, M., & Filastò, A. (2017). Internet Censorship in Pakistan: Findings from 2014-2017. Islamabad: Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) and Bytes for All Pakistan. Banks, J. (2010). Regulating Hate Speech Online. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 24(3) , 233-239. Becker, P. J., Byers, B., & Jipson, A. (2000). The Contentious American Debate: The First Amendment and Internet-based Hate Speech. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 14(1), 33-41. Ben-David, A., & Matamoros-Fernandez, A. (2016). Hate speech and covert discrimination on social media: Monitoring the Facebook pages of extreme-right political parties in Spain. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1167-1193. Borum, R. (2011a). Radicalization into Violent Extremism I: A Review of Social Science Theories. Journal of Strategic Security, 4, 7-36. Borum, R. (2011b). Radicalization into Violent Extremism II: A Review of Conceptual Models and Empirical Research. Journal of Strategic Security, 4, 37-62. Boyne, S. M. (2010). Free Speech, Terrorism and European Security: Defining and Defending the Political Community. Pace Law Review, 30, 417-483. Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2008). Agency and Controversy in the YouTube Community. Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) IR 9.0: Rethinking Communities, Rethinking Place, (pp. 16-18). Burris, V., Smith, E., & Strahm, A. (2000). White Supremacist Networks on the Internet. Sociological Focus, 33(2), 215-235. Butler, J. (1997). Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. London: Routledge. Caiani, M., & Kröll, P. (2015). The transnationalization of the extreme right and the use of the Internet. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 39(4), 331-351. Cammaerts, B. (2008). Critiques on the Participatory Potentials of Web 2.0. Communication, Culture & Critique, 1(4), 358-377. Cammaerts, B. (2009). Radical pluralism and free speech in online public spaces. The case of North Belgian extreme right discourses. International Journal of Cultural studies, 12(6), 555-575. Carter, E. (2018). Right-wing Extremism/Radicalism: Reconstructing the Concept. Journal of Political Ideologies, 23(2), 157-182. Castells, M. (2004). Informationalism, networks, and the network society: a theoretical blueprint. In M. Castells (Ed.), The Network Society: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3-45). Edward Elgar Publishing. Cere, R. (2003). Digital counter-cultures and the nature of electronic social and political movements. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Dot.cons: Crime, deviance and identity on the internet (pp. 147-163). London: Willan Publishing. Chermak, S., Freilich, J., & Suttmoeller, M. (2013). The Organizational Dynamics of Far- Right Hate Groups in the United States: Comparing Violent to Nonviolent Organizations. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36(3), 193-218. Citron, D. K., & Norton, H. (2011). Intermediaries and Hate Speech: Fostering Digital Citizenship for Our Information Age. 91 Boston University Law Review 1435. Conway, M. (2017). Determining the Role of the Internet in Violent Extremism and Terrorism: Six Suggestions for Progressing Research. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 40(1), 77-98. Corbin, J., & Stauss, A. (2007). Basics of Doing Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Couldry, N. (2002). Alternative Media and Mediated Community. The International Association for Media and Communication Research. Barcelona. Couldry, N. (2009). Communicative Entitlements and Democracy: The Future of the Digital Divide Debate. The Oxford Handbook of Information and Communication Technologies, 383-403. Crawford, K., & Gillespie, T. (2014). What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media & Society, 18(3), 410-428 . Crosset, V., Tanner, S., & Campana, A. (2019). Researching far right groups on Twitter: Methodological challenges 2.0. New Media & Society 21(4), 939-961. Daniels, J. (2008). Race, civil rights, and hate speech in the digital era. In A. Everett (Ed.), Learning race and ethnicity: Youth and digital media (pp. 129-154). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2014). Hate Speech in Cyberspace. Wake Forest Law Review 49, 319-340. Denning, D. E. (2010). Terror's web: how the Internet is transforming terrorism. In Y. Jewkes, & M. Yar (Eds.), Handbook of Internet Crime (pp. 194-213). Devon: Willian Publishing. Edwards, L., Rauhofer, J., & Yar, M. (2010). Recent Developments in UK Cybercrime Law. In Y. Jewkes, & M. Yar (Eds.), Handbook of Internet Crime (pp. 413-436). Devon: Willian Publishing. Evans, D. S. (2002). The Antitrust Economics of Two-Sided Markets. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=332022. Farrior, S. (1996). Molding the Matrix: The Historical and Theoretical Foundations of International Law concerning Hate Speech. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 14(1), 1-99. Findlay, A., McCollum, D., Coulter, R., & Gayle, V. (2015). New Mobilities Across the Life Course: A Framework for Analysing Demographically Linked Drivers of Migration. Population, Space and Place, 21, 390–402. Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(Special Issue), 298-320. Foltz, C. B. (2004). Cyberterrorism, computer crime, and reality. Information Management & Computer Security, 12(2), 154-166. Fusch, P. I., Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2017). How to Conduct a Mini-Ethnographic Case Study: A Guide for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 22(3), 923- 941. Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., & Martinez, G. (2015). Countering Online Hate Speech. UNESCO Series on Freedom: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Gerstenfeld, P. B., Grant, D. R., & Chiang, C.-P. (2003). Hate Online: A Content Analysis of Extremist Internet Sites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), 29- 44. Gill, P., Corner, E., Conway, M., Thornton, A., Bloom, M., & Horgan, J. (2017). Terrorist Use of the Internet by the Numbers: Quantifying Behaviours, Patterns, and Processes. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(1), 99-117. Gillespie, T. (2010). The Politics of 'Platforms'. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347-364. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607. Goodwin, M., & Ramalingam, V. (2012). The New Radical Right: Violent and Non- Violent Movements in Europe. Oslo and Utøya, Six Months on: Prospects for Countering Violent Right-Wing Extremism in Europe. London: Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Gorard, S., Selwyn, N., & Williams, S. (2001). Digital Divide or Digital Opportunity? The Role of Technology in Overcoming Social Exclusion in U.S. Education. Educational Policy, 15(2), 258-277. Guillen, M. F., & Suarez, S. L. (2005). Explaining the Global Digital Divide: Economic, Political and Sociological Drivers of Cross-National Internet Use. Social Forces, 84(2), 681-708. Heins, M. (2002). Criminalising Online Speech to Protect the Young. In D. S. Wall, Crime and the Internet (pp. 100-112). London: Routledge. Heins, M. (2014). The brave new world of social media censorship. Harvard Law Review, 127(325), 325– 330. Hermida, A. (2010). Twittering the news: The emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism Practice, 4(3), 297-308. Holt, T. J. (2012). Exploring the Intersections of Technology, Crime, and Terror. Terrorism and Political Violence, 24(2), 337-354. Holt, T. J., & Bolden, M.-S. (2014, July-December). Technological Skills of White Supremacists in an Online Forum: A Qualitative Examination. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 8(2). Holt, T. J., Freilich, J. D., Chermak, S., & McCauley, C. (2015). Political radicalization on the Internet: Extremist content, government control, and the power of victim and jihad videos. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 8(2), 107-120. Kerodal, A. G., Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. M. (2016). Commitment to Extremist Ideology: Using Factor Analysis to Move beyond Binary Measures of Extremism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 39(7-8), 687-711. Kunkle, J. (2012). Social Media and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat. The Police Chief, 79, 22. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor–network theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Liang, C. S. (2015). Cyber Jihad: Understanding and Countering Islamic State Propaganda. Geneva: Geneva Centre for Security Policy. Liao, Q. V., & Fu, W.-T. (2013). Beyond the Filter Bubble: Interactive Effects of Perceived Threat and Topic Involvement on Selective Exposure to Information. CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives. Paris, France. Mansell, R. (2012). Imagining the Internet: Communication, Innovation, and Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mill, J. S. (1869). On Liberty. London: Longman. Moskalenko, S., & McCauley, C. (2009). Measuring Political Mobilization: The Distinction Between Activism and Radicalism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 21(2), 239-260. Mossberger, K., Stansbury, M., & Tolbert, C. J. (2003). Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington DC, USA: Georgetown University Press. Napoli, P. M. (2018). What If More Speech Is No Longer the Solution: First Amendment Theory Meets Fake News and the Filter Bubble. Federal Communications Law Journal, 70, 55-104. Neumann, P. R. (2013). Options and Strategies for Countering Online Radicalization in the United States. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36(6), 431-459. Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18, 34-35. O'Callaghan, D., Greene, D., Conway, M., Carthy, J., & Cunningham, P. (2013a). The Extreme Right Filter Bubble. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.6149. O'Callaghan, D., Greene, D., Conway, M., Carthy, J., & Cunningham, P. (2013b). Uncovering the Wider Structure of Extreme Right Communities Spanning Popular Online Networks. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Web Science Conference. WebSci. O’Callaghan, D., Greene, D., Conway, M., Carthy, J., & Cunningham, P. (2013c). An Analysis of Interactions Within and Between Extreme Right Communities in Social Media. In M. Atzmueller, A. Chin, D. Helic, & A. Hotho (Eds.), Ubiquitous Social Media Analysis (pp. 88-107). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Oksanen, A., Kaakinen, M., Minkkinen, J., Räsänen, P., Enjolras, B., & Steen-Johnsen, K. (2018). Perceived Societal Fear and Cyberhate after the November 2015 Paris Terrorist Attacks. Terrorism and Political Violence. Parker, E. (2007). Implementation of the UK Terrorism Act 2006 - The Relationship between Counterterrorism Law, Free Speech, and the Muslim Community in the United Kingdom versus the United States. Emory International Law Review, 21, 711-757. Ravndal, J. A. (2013). Anders Behring Breivik’s use of the Internet and social media. JEX Journal for Deradicalization and Democratic Culture, 2, 172–185. Rousseau, J. J. (1762/1977). Du Contrat Social. Paris: Seuil. Rumi, R. (2018). Unpacking the Blasphemy Laws of Pakistan. Asian Affairs, 49(2), 319- 339. Sassen, S. (2002). Towards a Sociology of Information Technology. Current Sociology, 50(3), 365–388. Szmania, S., & Fincher, P. (2017). Countering Violent Extremism Online and Offline. Criminology & Public Policy 16(1), 119-125. Timofeeva, Y. A. (2003). Hate Speech Online: Restricted or Protected - Comparison of Regulations in the United States and Germany. Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 12(2), 253-285. van Dijk, J. (2006). The Network Society. (Second Edition). London: Sage Publications. Virilio, P. (2005). The Information Bomb. London: Verso. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratising Innovation: The Evolving Phenomenon of User Innovation. Management Review Quarterly, 55(1), 63-78. Walker, S. (1994). Hate speech: The History of an American Controversy. University of Nebraska Press. Wall, D. S. (2000). The Theft of Electronic Services: Telecommuications and Teleservices. London: Crime Prevention Panel, Department of Trade and Industry. Wall, D. S. (2002a). Cybercrime and the Internet. In D. S. Wall (Ed.), Crime and the Internet (pp. 1-17). London: Routledge. Wall, D. S. (2002b). Mantaining order and law on the Internet. In D. S. Wall (Ed.), Crime and the Internet (pp. 167-183). London: Routledge. Weimann, G. (2004). How Modern Terrorism Uses the Internet. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace. Wihbey, J., Joseph, K., & Lazer, D. (2019). The social silos of journalism? Twitter, news media and partisan segregation. New Media & Society, 21(4), 815-835. Williams, K. S. (2010). Transnational Developments in Internet Law. In Y. Jewkes, & M. Yar (Eds.), Handbook of Internet Crime (pp. 466-491). Devon: Willian Publishing. Williams, M. (2002). The Language of Cybercrime. In D. S. Wall (Ed.), Crime and the Internet (pp. 152-166). London: Routledge. Wilson, B. (2006). Ethnography, the Internet, and Youth Culture: Strategies for Examining Social Resistance and "Online-Offline" Relationships. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(1), The Popular Media, Education, and Resistance, 307-328. Wyatt, S. (2004). Danger! Metaphors at Work in Economics, Geophysiology, and the Internet. Science, Technology, & Human Values 29(2), 242-61. Wykes, M., & Harcus, D. (2010). Cyber-terror: Construction, Criminalisation and Control. In Y. Jewkes, & M. Yar (Eds.), Handbook of Internet Crime (pp. 214-229). Devon: Willian Publishing.

Appendix

The appendix contains transcripts of all videos included in the research. Tweets extracted are not included because they have also been quoted directly in the research.

Case 1 YouTube Video Transcripts

Khadim Hussain Rizvi Speech in Dharna against Asia Bibi - Khadim Hussain Rizvi TLP latest Speech

Duration: 11:49

619 views Likes 7 Dislike 0 Channel: Today News Published on 1 Nov 2018 Extracted on June 25, 2019 Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQK1BEWDLVA

Khadim Rizvi: “Do something that the prophet (Muhammad) himself calls you (to him in heaven)

Other people will ask (after death in purgatory) who is this, and (they) will say this is the person who took on the world (for the prophet).

(This) person didn’t care for who was family (to him) looked at my related to him

Chant: Crown the (idea of) finality of the Prophet (Muhammad) Crowd: (Zindabad) (live long!)

KR: Police, Rangers and Army came to defend buildings. And no one came to defend the Prophet’s honour? People came to defend this cement, these bricks... Oh God, just give us death then

Crowd chants: Ameen! (Amen)

KR: At the day of judgement people will say they protected WAPDA (Water and Power Development Authority) House. Someone will say they protected the Assembly. Others will say they protected the judges… they formed part of their security protocol.

God will ask, who was there to defend him?

Cut here to a different part of speech.

KR: Many merciless (leaders) have come and gone, but no one has done something like this.

Someone as merciless as (Mughal) Emperor Akbar, when it came to the Prophet’s honour, and there came an issue between Hindus and Muslims over a mosque – when they (Hindus) brought all the stuff to construct a temple there instead, the Muslims tried to stop them, and they in turn insulted the Prophet. The case came to Qazi (Judge) Abdur Rahim, it was a case of the respect of the Prophet, and he said that he couldn’t decide the case because the Emperor Akbar had Hindu women in his house. If I give the Hindus the death penalty, then Akbar will get me killed. He took the case on to the Chief Justice Abdul Ghani and said, Sir, these Hindus have said something against the Prophet and Akbar sitting above is – the criminal – has his own Religion of Akbar (Mughal Akbar created his own religion that essentially died with him) and if give these Hindus the death penalty, Akbar will get us killed. Chief Justice Abdul Ghani went straight to Emperor Akbar and stated that this problem had come to him...

Listen everyone, a man who was a complete infidel, of whom people said that he had a rat’s face, when (they) saw Akbar (they) thought he had a rat’s face. The way a rat’s face is when its gnawing on things... because he had said things (against) Islam, Sir Mujjadid said to Hazrat Maalik – who is the caretaker of hell, I asked him bring Akbar out and show me what he looks like, what his state is. Mujjadid saab said that they brought a trunk outside (the gates of hell) and in the corner was a little rat. He said, that he told them that he wanted to see Akbar (not a rat) and they said this is him. This is Akbar. This is what God has done to him (because of what he said). Who did this to the Prophet’s religion, God made him like this as a result.

But Akbar, even being who the big criminal that he was and doing what he did, when it came to the Prophet’s honour, he asked the Chief Justice, what the Shariat (Law) decides on this matter. He replied that Shariat entails that their heads be removed. (Akbar) then said then (KR shouts) remove them!

Crowd cheers in response

Cut in video

KR: Someone as big of an infidel (as Akbar), said this. They asked him what about the women in your house? He said the Hindu women can go wherever they want, when it comes to the Prophet, this (death) is the only sentence.

Even an infidel like Akbar, when it came to the honour of the prophet he bowed his head (in deference). What kind of infidel species are these (rulers) that when it comes to the honour of the Holy Prophet, these people are talking s**t. And are releasing her (Asia bibi). The Islamic Ummah (community) will not accept this (court) decision.

Crowd chants: Inshahallah (God willing)

KR: Yes. You tell me, oh tall one (said in a derogatory tone, meaning Prime Minister Imran Khan), you went to Madinah and took of your shoes (in deference), for what purpose? Are you trying to fool the public? Someone who respects the dirt of Madinah cannot honour the respect of the prophet?

Crowd chants in support

KR: What did you think that the people will get behind you because you took your shoes off? The people know that you tried to deceive them. This deception won’t work here.

Another cut in video

KR: Hazrat Dhiraar bin Azwar’s (companion of the Prophet) horse was tired while conducting a Jihad in Syria. He had been riding the horse from morning to evening. And the infidels thought that they had to capture/kill Hazrat Dhirar to break the backbone of Muslims (in battle). They won’t be able to carry out their Jihad and Shaam (Syria) will not be defeated. The infidels tried to surround Hazrat Dihrar bin Azwar and from morning to evening after running for so long the horse was tired and bent its knees. When the horse was giving up like this, Hazrat Dihrar said to him, do you know that the infidels are trying to arrest me. I don’t mind losing my life, but my purpose right now is to defeat Syria. He grabbed the horse’s ear and said if you get me caught right now or won’t help me make it then I’m going to complain to the Prophet about you. Even after a day’s work, the horse was ready to give up and when the Prophet’s name was brought up, he jumped over the thousands of the enemy army and took him to safety.

Crowd Cheers

KR: My Prophet’s name has a lot of weight in it. The horse jumped over thousands of troops and took Hazrat Dihraar to safety. Only because he heard the Prophet’s name, this amount of energy came into it (the horse).

KR: (Allama) Iqbal (notable Islamic poet of Pakistan) says that the reason for this is something other than you think it is. The story is something else.

KR: I gave you the example of the horse. Thousands in that army and the horse jumped over them all because of the Prophet’s name. Hazrat Abu Qatada’s (another companion of the Prophet) horse got out of control in its love for the Prophet, and the Prophet only wished it well in his prayers. He said God had hit him (the horse). So when all of you lose control because of the Prophet’s name, if a horse can get well wishes from the Prophet.. the horse was rushing to protect the camels of the prophet. It wanted to rush ahead and Abu Qatada tried to pull it back because he didn’t want it going past the prophet. When he pulled it back the horse made a noise, and the Prophet noticed that Abu Qatada’s horse was rushing to protect His camels. And then He said, Abu Qatada you and your horse have he permission to go ahead, God is with you.

Crowd cheers: SubhanAllah (Praise God)

KR: Here if a horse loses control it gets well wishes from the Prophet, if a Muslim loses control, imagine how many blessings he will receive.

Chant: Crown the (idea of) finality of the Prophet (Muhammad) Crowd: (Zindabad) (live long!)

KR: Over here, blasphemy could be proven against the entire community, and she said such s**t about the Prophet, you couldn’t even see?

KR: When Khalid bin Walid (historical army commander during the rise of the Islamic empire in the early days) went to do battle with those that refused to pay zakat (a Muslim tax), Maalik bin Nuwera was a Muslim, Khalid bin Walid asked him why he didn’t pay zakat? Maalik replied that your Prophet has left the world now. Khalid bin Walid beheaded him with his sword right there. This case went to Madinah and Hazrat Umar (the caliph of the time) lost his cool. Hazrat Umar did not know the whole story, what he heard was that Khalid bin Walid had killed a fellow Muslim, Maalik bin Nuwera. He ordered his man Siddiq to take a limb from Khalid bin walid as punishment and make him handicapped for killing a Muslim. Siddiq replied that the sword that the Prophet’s will unsheathed, I can’t put back. But I can call Khalid bin Walid back to Madinah. He wrote a letter to Khalid saying that the conditions in Madinah were getting worse and Hazrat Umar is very angry so come defend yourself since you killed a fellow Muslim. When Khalid bin Walid came to doors of the Masjid ul Nabvi (the Prophet’s Mosque) – back then that mosque was the Supreme Court.

Crowd: SubhanAllah (praise god)

KR: The place where you (Supreme Court judges of Pakistan) pass judgements, one needs a lawyer that costs five million. Without that one cannot even enter the Supreme Court. Change will come the day Muhammad’s religion will rule. And InshaAllah (God willing) this will be very soon.

Crowd: InshaAllah

KR: Enough, now these people have numbered days. The end. The Prophet’s religion will be here soon. Anyone who is not convinced don’t raise their hands, whoever believes that God will destroy them (government) raise their hands

Crowd: Raises hands and cheers

KR: These people who betrayed the honour of the Prophet in such a big way, they will not be spared, their descendants will also be smelly and unwelcome (into heaven) on the day of judgement.

Crowd cheers: InshaAllah

KR: When Khalid bin Walid entered the mosque, he had bloodstained arrows in his turban on his head. Khalid had basically just come from his work (war). When the people had gathered all the companions of the Prophet were sitting there. They were discussing this case of Khalid killing a fellow Muslim. Listen to this; people say that there is no such thing as besmirching the honour of the Prophet. Khalid told the judge that he killed the man because when I asked him why he didn’t pay his zakat, he didn’t say that the Prophet has passed, he said, the Prophet is no more in a way which seemed like he did not believe in the Prophet anymore. The judge said, okay you did the right thing then.

Crowd cheers

KR: In that case the judgement was given on the basis of one Arabic word which changed the meaning of the sentence, and here, this case went from the sessions (court) to the high court and onwards and no one understood (the blasphemy) here? You did this to get money from the Jews. Since money is God’s blessing I won’t say I piss on this money, but we won’t even spit in the direction of such money. Understand? We won’t even spit in the direction of this (illicit) money! The whole ummah (Muslim community) can die of thirst, can die of hunger, we won’t take this stinky money. Return this money back to them. You (the government) took this for yourself. The whole country works hard for their own money and earnings, what have you given to the people in these 70 years (of Pakistani history)? You looted the people. Tear the stomachs and take out the money from those who took these loans. Take the money back from them. We didn’t take any loans. They are worried that if Labbaik comes (into power), since we have not taken any loans, we will tear their stomachs and make sure they give the country’s money back. Yes. Exactly. Whoever wants to give their life for the cause are sitting here.

Crowd cheers: Labaik, Labaik, Labaik, ya Rasool Allah (declare the Prophet proudly)

Camera switches to crowd cheering in droves.

Khadim Hussain Rizvi Speech about Asia Bibi - Khadim Hussain Rizvi Speech about Asia bibi today

Duration: 6:01

19301 views Likes 161 Dislike 28 Channel: Today News Published on 31 October 2018 Extracted on June 27, 2019 Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGxG5pEYchw

Khadim Rizvi: Man, people mark dates of significant event in their lives. After ninety years or ninety-nine years, (they will ask) what they did on the 31st of October? Muslims used to walk with their heads high on the 31st of October. On this day, the person who defended the Prophets honour was martyred. Don’t think that the decision being announced on October 31 was a coincidence. Yes. They took a huge revenge. This date is supposed to be a day of passion for Muslims, they lose control, for Ilm-ud-din they come on the roads. We should take a decision so that this day also becomes the day of release for someone who disrespected the Prophet. Listen sons, we cannot digest this. Do not think we will digest this. Just think what happened on October 31. And now think after ninety-nine years, is this why Pakistan was made? So that someone who disrespected the Prophet could be released? At least in the time of the British when they hanged Ilm-ud-Din, at least the entire Muslim Ummah (community) stood up (in support). Iqbal came, Quaid-e-Azam came and Pir Jamaat Shah sb also came. But now all those who are sitting in their house still, what are you waiting for? You stayed in at the time of Mumtaz Qadri, stayed in at the time of Holland (blasphemous cartoons day), still stayed in when the speakers of mosques were taken off. Then when people supporting the Ahmediyya community you still stayed in. When this Jewish agent needed votes, they stood up to support this Imran Khan because they said he was the defender of the Prophethood and because he will defend the finality of the Prophethood. See what he did, how he defended (it), get out of here! People say things against us because of this, they used to call him a lover of the Prophet. Enough! Now whoever will sit here (with us in support) firstly, they will not speak to one another unless absolutely important, and secondly, anyone who is here to see a show still has the permission, they can leave if they want. And only those that want to get beheaded for the Prophet… (raise hands)

Crowd cheers

KH: Think a thousand times before raising your hands. Yes. I can see these individuals from (intelligence) agencies not raising their hands. At least say that you stand with Asia. Whoever is standing with Asia raise your hands. Just say it. I know who all is from agencies here. Sons, just remember, on the day of judgement, we will grab you. If you come in front of the Prophet then, just wait and watch we will do to you. Yes. What do you think that you will always draw these salaries, you haram-eaters? You still only care about your salaries? You who lack conscience.. What sort of agencies are these that when we come out to protect the dignity of the Prophet and you (stop us). We never allowed for a hand to be raised against the companions of the Prophet, and she said whatever she wanted to about the Prophet? This is just the Prophet who is merciful, thinking about the kids on this earth, otherwise, the world and the sky would have collided. And you still do your shit, someone is roaming here others are roaming there (without care). What sort of things are these. The whole world shook. Do you know the sort of things she said about the Prophet? A Muslim cannot bring these words to their tongue. Today, you released her with pride, and now you (agencies) people will protect that narrative? Only two things. Either leave the Prophet’s kalmah (religion). If you don’t want to do that then be loyal to him. That’s it, the third route is that of hypocrisy and it’s even worse than infidelity. And all of you who are sitting here, your faces must show anger (over what happened) and your eyes should be bloodshot. We are sitting here to give our life for the cause anyway.

KH: Tajdaar-e-Khatme-Nabuwat

Crowd: Zindabad.

KH: People care about their salaries and work and designations. Do you not care about the kalmah? We are only interested in people that concentrate on one cause. (just say) Prophet I am here for you. That’s it. I have no other purpose but to give my head for you. If you are here for this, praise be to God. But if you are sitting here wondering when this is going to end, then (know) there is no ending it. This is not something that will just end. If you want something to end, pray for my end and yours. We have no right to live anymore. Just pray for this. We are sitting here, hopefully we will go (die) from here. If someone doesn’t shoot us, then just pass from here. Tell me what I’m supposed to do with this life, tell me. How am I supposed to answer about this to the Prophet (after death). What will you say about this; that it was all happening in front of you and you did nothing? You were saving your sons, your businesses? Our shops were open, we had a wedding to attend that day. Leave everything and come to the field now. Whoever can hear me and wherever my voice reaches. Close your door, chant Labaik and enter the field of implementation, that’s it!

HAZRAT ALLAMA KHADIM HUSSAIN RIZVI New Bayan 2017 Ghazi Mumtaz, Ghazi Tanveer and Malonah Asia Masih

Duration: 12:39

379026 views Likes 4.1k Dislike 413 Channel: ISLAMIC VIDEOS M.A Published on 5 December 2017 Extracted on June 27, 2019 Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eky8nKfAJRc

KR: Mumtaz (Qadri) went and kissed his hangman’s rope. He said, that’s it. This is what Nawaz (Sharif) got for me at the behest of Obama? This I have kissed now (and accepted), what’s next? Even centuries after people will dance and be happy at his (Qadri’s) actions. Did anyone else happily climb the steps to his own hanging? He even chanted ‘Labaik’ before getting hanged. The thing is something else. What did they think, that the people will cry? No no, he is a hero for our children. A symbol of bravery. Did you lose your neck over this (blasphemy issue)? I asked Malik Awan (Qadri’s father) that when Mumtaz Qadri was walking towards his hanging, tell me honestly, how did he seem? He said he was separated from us at 3:40. They took him after. He said he had never seen Mumtaz happier in twenty- six years of knowing him as he had seen him walking towards the gallows.

Crowd cheers

KR: They will talk about Mumtaz Qadri’s bravery for centuries. And Ghazi Tanveer’s bravery. He used to chant Labaik while on the phone with me at random intervals. I asked him why he kept chanting Labaik while on the phone with me. He said that after we talk, the English (police) listen to the recording of our conversation. And I want to tell them even after hearing (the decision) of 27 years, I am still the same.

Chants: Labaik, Labaik, Labaik, Ya Rasool Allah

KR: Ghazi (warrior) Tanveer said that the Ahmadi he killed, he (the victim) used to say that the angel Gabriel visits me every week. He said that when he went from London to Scotland, he did not know where this person’s shop was, so he would stay with a friend and ask around and plan something. He said, he heard a voice telling him that if he did not kill this Ahmadi then would spend the rest of his days like a dirty dog does. He said he heard this (divine) voice. No one makes these decisions because (I) Khadim told them to, Mumtaz didn’t kill (Salmaan Taseer) because someone told him to. These decisions have already been made (above). Ghazi (warrior) Mumtaz said that the beggars all around me were telling me to kill him. He said that normally the orders for the protection detail (of which he was a part) of VVIPs are so strict that they have orders to shoot to kill if anyone even puts one step wrong. He said when he (Taseer) left (from the restaurant), I was at a distance of 30 yards from him, from that devil (Taseer). When he came outside after eating pig and drinking alcohol, in Kohsar Market, I took two steps and then I looked behind me to see if anyone would stop me. He said I looked behind me and saw no one cared. This surprised me because I thought they might shoot me from behind. He said then I started walking further, and he was coming towards me. And then when I took my gun out in front of the others (guards) I thought they would shoot me for sure. I looked behind again and no one had noticed. He said he saw all those beggars gathered behind him. The policemen say that they only realized what had happened after Mumtaz had shot Taseer and then surrendered himself. He did what he had to do and then asked them to arrest him.

Crowd chants: Labaik, Labaik, Labaik, Ya Rasool Allah

KR: The real story is something else.

Crowd keeps chanting

KR: Ghazi (warrior) Tanveer told me that he didn’t know where the shop of that Ahmadi was, but then the sun shone through a cloud and pointed out his shop and led me right to it. He said when he got to that shop, he parked his car slightly further off. On the corner of the street. He said I got into the shop and asked him that I have heard that Gibrael (the angel) visits you? He (victim) replied yes, yes he does. He said first I just talked to him like this. He said the knife he had tied here (on his forearm under the shirt). He (Tanveer) told me (Khadim) that I made him kill the Ahmadi. *laughs* I asked him how? He said that I told him that Ilm-Uddin took the knife like this over and over again, and I wanted to test this too. This is what he said, that I made him kill (the victim). You kept telling me about the name, so I took it to Scotland. Tanveer told me that the victim didn’t know that I had come (for his reckoning) today. I kept speaking to him and he kept aggreging (to the blasphemy). I asked him to stop saying this nonsense and act more like a human being. He said that the victim was short, because Tanveer is 6’2 in height. He said that the man did not even come up to his navel. This midget, ungainly and unpleasant (of voice). I told him to talk sense and he kept saying no Gabriel comes and visits me. He said when I drew the knife a bit, the man jumped a bit. I asked him didn’t Gabriel tell you about today when Muhammad’s lion is coming to visit you?

Crowd cheers SubhanAllah

Declaration of God! Allah hu Akbar (God is great!) Declaration of prophethood! Ya Rasool Allah (the Prophet of God)

Labaik, Labaik, Labaik, Ya Rasool Allah

KR: He (Tanvir) said that when I stabbed him the first time, he went from here to there and started screaming. There was a gym next door, all the Scottish people came, people much bigger and taller than me. They all grabbed me but couldn’t control me. They all surrounded me, someone hit me with a rod, someone slapped me, whatever they had in their hands for exercise, they hit me with. Tanvir told me this the exact same way I’m telling you right now. He (Tanvir) said, Maulana, then I put my foot on his face. They had already grabbed me from above. But I counted the 27 times I stabbed him.

Someone in crowd: SubhanAllah (praise be to God)

KR: Boys you know what unique means right? Tanvir said he became unique for the Scottish that day. I asked him what do you mean? He said that they were all shocked that I managed to stab him 27 times in four minutes. And those too were proper stabs. Not weak ones. Deep stabs into him. *Makes the stabbing action and smiles*. He said he became unique, the boys here have told you what that means, it means he became one of a kind. Tanvir said they were investigating, you know how the foreigners are, they might eat pigs, but they do investigate. *Jokes* investigate where the pig comes from where it goes and all that. They do investigate properly though. They were investigating (Tanvir’s case) and couldn’t believe that this boy managed to stab (the victim) 27 times in four minutes. He said that when they grabbed him, he put his foot on (the victim’s) face and then – these are his own words, very enjoyable – he said, Maulana, I broke his face like you break a plate (with my foot). I asked him that this is the face you used to disrespect the Prophet? He said after I killed him I just sat down and the police cars came with their sirens from everywhere, they saw me (sitting) alone and backed off. *laughs*

KR: The story is something else. Tanvir told them (the police) that idiots, I won’t say anything to you. Tanvir said that afterwards, the police got four charges against me dropped. The police themselves! They said they had not seen a prisoner like him (Tanvir) before. He (Tanvir) said, idiots, I won’t say anything to you, I have no quarrel with you. The fight I had I finished. They surrounded me and I told them no need, come. They (the police) went to court and testified that they had not seen a (well-behaved) prisoner like me. No convict either. Yes. Because the story is something else in reality. SubhanAllah. The real story is something else. This is why, even if its Obama, or Modi, or some other pig, don’t get this wrong. Infidels have a right to live, our country has so many Christians living here. They can do whatever they want. We are not worried. Sikhs live here too. Modi drinks the piss of cows, he can drink the piss of donkeys too, why should we care about that? Yes? He can also eat the shit of a donkey alongside. Make a halwa out of it. Why would we worry? Yes. Can mix dogs (piss) and drink it too. We don’t have a problem. These people that say things against us, I tell them, Idiots! Being an infidel is something else. Disrespecting the prophet is something else.

Crowd cheers: Well said!

KR: Infidels do not get this wrong. Or just come sit with us and have-what do they call it? Have a dialogue with us. Bring your cleric, your biggest pope and make him sit with us. This Asia, don’t many other Christian women live here? Don’t they sweep the floors every day? Are they not our servants? You give them food in your house, clothe them, give them money, our Muslims give them things (as charity) in time of festivities as well. When Eid- ul-Fitr or other Eids come, we give these Christian women clothes, give them things when their children are getting married. Assholes, the problem with Asia Masih is different, she is not the only Christian woman who lives here. There are hundreds of thousands of other Christian women. We look after them as well. All Muslims do good for them, we don’t even insult them, we have never even sworn at them. Why are all the infidels across the world hurt for Asia Masih? Sons of assholes, don’t you get it, the issue of insulting the prophet is so huge, the companions of the prophet always said the respect of the prophet is on one side and the covers to the holy Kaaba and its walls are not as important. Tell me now! *Verses in Arabic* Kill her there and then. Enough, nothing more to say. He problem here is completely different

Chants: Remove head from the body (behead), remove head from the body.

KR: It’s not an issue of sect. People don’t even know. Insulting the prophet is not tolerable. Swear at us, call us names. Look, those two women that started fighting. That donkey of Nankana. Calling her a donkey is an insult to the donkey, calling her a sow is an insult to the sow. Donkeys are donkeys sure, pigs are pigs, yes, at least they don’t insult the prophet.

Voice in crowd: Wow. Well said.

KR: Yes. A fight took place there. One girl was a Muslim and the other (Asia) was a Christian. She (Asia) should have sworn at the girl. How dare she say anything about the prophet. We are here, swear at us. Say Muslims are like this, that is acceptable. Say Muslims didn’t develop, Muslims did not invent the lightbulb, we (Christians) did. We made roads, the Muslims didn’t. We made canals, the Muslims didn’t. And yes, we didn’t do any of this, we admit. We might be weak, but assholes, swear at us. If I fight with you, you can’t start swearing at my father. And the respect of all mothers and fathers are sacrificed even for the place where my prophet takes a piss.

Crowd: SubhanAllah

KR: I am discussing this issue specifically for the youth here to fight the propaganda on tv. They say that us Muslims treat Christians here horribly. No, have you started going outside and slapping the Christians?

Crowd: No

KR: I myself, the Christian lady outside my mosque, who sweeps the floor, this old lady, she waits for me, waits for my car to come. She knows that the Maulana is about to come, he will give me money. I give her money; I am a nice guy. If I am at home and she comes calling I tell someone to give her some money as charity. Idiots! The issue of Asia has caused pain to the pope, to Obama, to France, sons of assholes, she insulted the prophet, and the Muslim Ummah, over 1400 years has tolerated everything, insulting the prophet has never been tolerated. Yes. We are saying all of this, publicly, anyone can spread this anywhere they want, we won’t change what we are saying. Everyone can live around the world, keep living, we don’t care. But the issue of respecting the prophet is very important for us.

Asia Malona | Case | Supreme Court | Decision | Allama Khadim Hussain Rizvi 8,772 views

386 likes

13 dislikes

Allama Khadim Hussain Rizvi Official Published on 5 Oct 2018 Retrieved on July 02, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjihNpiBdV4

Duration: 1:51

Khadim Hussain: The High Court and the Sessions Court have declared Asia Maloona a blasphemer, what do you want to do with her now? Someone because of whom on of our lions (Mumtaz Qadri) got himself hanged, calling her a pig would be an insult to the pig. I don’t have a word that describes (her).

KH: Christians can stay alive in this world and live, Jews can live, Hindus can live, Sikhs can live, Buddhists can live, but no one is allowed to talk about the prophet.

KH: In that case Islam does not allow for your life to be spared. Other than that live, we don’t bother anyone. They drink the urine of cows, we don’t tell them to drink milk (instead). We say eat shit as well alongside. We don’t care. Do what you want. But remember one thing. Do not talk about my Lord or Prophet. Yes. There is no forgiveness (for that).

KH: This is why I say they spread falsehoods. Islam is Islam, but it says you better watch your mouth while talking. Whether you are Hindu or Sikh, nothing will be there if the mouth you have been given was not there, and there will be nothing (left) if there is nothing there. If you have life you have wellness. If you have wellness you have life. That’s it. That’s what it is. Understand our problem. You recite the Kalmah and you still don’t understand? You go outside and say this and that. We are sitting here, talk to us. Yes, Islam gives everyone the right to live. But the right to live for a blasphemer is not granted by Islam. We can’t do anything. The religion can’t be changed. The problems can’t be changed. The world will change, Quran will not change. That’s it. She’s a blasphemer, hang her. What do you want with her now? You want her to escape because the Jewish lobby told you to do so? Then remember, the slaves of the Prophet are alive.

Kh: It will always remain

Crowd: His glory!

Allama Khadim Hussain Rizvi Talking about 295c, imran Khan , Asia bibi 11,513 views

198 likes

21 dislikes Channel: 295C RED ZONE

Published October 9, 2018

Duration: 2:59

Retrieved July 01, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPlE1uHdgwY

Khadim Rizvi: You should be wary of what you are doing (in a threatening manner). If you try and speak bullshit in the issue of 295c, Imran (Khan) PML-N and Zardari, listen carefully. If you try and scrap it, then Umar Law is also there.

Crowd cheers

KR: Yes. The (intelligence) agencies should take this statement of mine and spread it. Umar Law is the law that Umar decided (with death) before the matter got to the issue of the Prophet. Yes. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You try and change the 295c again and again. (only) One person died. The US destroyed the entire world, you didn’t remember humanity then, or (indecipherable). The Prophet’s law has never been misused. These people are all sitting here, you people from Sheikhupura. Is anyone mad that they would get up and accuse me of insulting the Prophet? Or if someone says something about Mufti sir, that he said something against the Shariah, will they be made (if they do so)? A Muslim will think a thousand times about respect of the Prophet. Can someone call a Muslim a blasphemer? Now how many governors are there, aren’t there four? Has anyone said that any of the governors from the provinces is disrespecting the Prophet? When he talked shit, they said Salmaan Taseer was a blasphemer. Why else would they? Now how many students study in that university? Thousands study (there). That means obviously – as they say in Punjabi – (indecipherable).

Crowd cheers

KR: Obviously he said something. That’s why we say that, keep your tongues locked when it comes to Allah and His Prophet. A sinner can get forgiveness. On the day of judgement, when the Holy Prophet will speak when no other Prophet does, when the world is fearful of their fate, I will tell the world to not fear because I am here. And the Prophet will cry for you and me, for his sinful Ummah, so that means that there is forgiveness for a sinner, but no forgiveness for a traitor. A sinner does not pray and one tells him to pray, he says pray for, Oh God I am a sinner. You can tell him to fast, Ramzan is coming in June, he says it is too hot. I say why does the heat matter, the companions (of the Prophet) fought wars in the heat, what sort of pain do you have in your stomach. In the evening, you are going to drink Rooh Afza – I don’t say Rooh Afza because I am marketing it, it’s only because it is sold in the market. I never sold – have I ever even sold a magazine? All my speeches – I am now old – I have never even asked for charity on the loudspeaker of the mosque.

Reaction Of Khadim Rizvi On The Bail Of Aasia Bibi’s, Wrong Decision Took By CJ | Desi Tv 125,011 views

1K likes

786 dislikes

Channel: Desi Tv Published on 31 Oct 2018 Retrieved on July 12, 2019

Duration: 3:01

Only a part of the direct address of Khadim Rizvi was translated and transcribed. The rest of the video showed footage of the violent protests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlXtp85Ejqw

KH: At eight am in the morning, all devoted followers of the religion should take to the streets. If this decision is taken in accordance with protecting the respect and dignity of the Prophet, then pray and come back home. And if this decision is taken to release one who disrespected the Prophet, then be prepared and stay in the field of implementation to give any and every sacrifice that is required of you until the centre (KH and other leaders) do not say otherwise.

Asia Maloona Case | Mominana Nasiyat | Zimadaroon ke liye | Allama Khadim Hussain Rizvi 2018 8,330 views

625 likes

3 dislikes

Duration: 2:20

Channel: Allama Khadim Hussain Rizvi Official Published on 13 Oct 2018 Retrieved on July 12, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ1j2ZAcFV0

KH: If religion was implemented then no lawyer would have defended Asia Maloona. And they say about this, that it’s not a big issue because if it happened she only retaliated. This means that if someone says something about someone are they supposed to respond by insulting the Prophet? Any issue of this sort is not tolerable. All of you remain in your limits. It doesn’t matter; the Supreme Court judges, or the President, or Prime Minister, or a cleric or a religious devotee or the public. Everyone remain in their limits. The issue of disrespecting the Prophet is completely separate. If you don’t get it, then read first. Study religion first and then say things while sitting on your chairs (seat of power). Yes, a discussion about the Prophet is very dangerous, in the direction where you are going. There will be nothing left. God’s disaster will also come on you. Already the water (levels) are depleting, imagine if the water from above also disappears. Yes. All of this is possible only because of the Prophet. We are giving you this advice from one Muslim to another. All those who haven’t been caught yet, you should know that if even a lizard blows on the fire of the Prophet – a fire that was made for the Prophet – God punishes its descendants as well. *Arabic* If the Prophet wasn’t there, how would have Ibrahim come about? Fix your habits and your actions. This does not mean that you sit in your seats like content elephants and just use your power for your own self-interests. If God has given you this power, praise him and thank him and these Presidents will not be here forever. Yes. A lot of others have retired and you will retire as well. Don’t be duplicitous about the Prophet’s dignity and respect, if God has given you respect, this was only given to you so you could do good things and leave sins. We are discussing this with you form the perspective of fellow Muslims. Understand? Change yourself. You can have dignity of the court but no one respects the dignity of the Prophet? If someone, a lawyer, chews a chewing gum in front of you (judge), do you remember (Javed) Miandad the cricketer? He was brought to the court of Qayum Malik for match fixing. He was chewing gum and Qayum Malik said why are you moving your mouth like a goat, go outside and throw it out? This means that even moving your mouth in front of the judge is contempt of court. And where breathing is an insult it is no issue (for you)? Change yourself.

Case 2 YouTube Video Transcripts

Katie Hopkins talks to Worlds Apart about London, Sadiq Khan and Russia 482,368 views

Likes: 7.9K

Dislikes: 601

Uploaded by RT UK Published on 15 Jun 2018 Retrieved on July 04, 2019

28:02

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Pzztmx8o4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Pzztmx8o4

Oksana Boyko: Welcome to Worlds Apart. We may live in a global village, but every corner of this village is guarded by different rules on what one may or may not say in public. One man's truth teller has long become another man's bigot, while public debate often comes down to venting outrage or hurling insults rather than discussing policies. Is it still possible to have a substantive conversation with those who disagree with you vehemently? Well, to discuss that, I'm now joined by Katie Hopkins, British journalist and media personality. Katie, it's good to talk to you. Thank you very much for your time.

Katie Hopkins: Thank you for seeing me.

OB: Now, you're a pretty controversial person in your own country. Many people consider you purposefully offensive. And yet over the past few days that you've been here in Russia, in St. Petersburg, you've only said nice things about this country, which honestly is not very used to hearing nice things about itself. Are you being purposefully spiteful? I saying all those things as a contrarian.

KH: Mm hmm. People have been surprised by my reporting from St. Petersburg because I love this place. I love the openness of it. And it's been a real surprise to me. We are, I think, in the West, in my personal view, you know, Putin is painted as a monster and this is very much the monster's lair. And people are almost fearful, actually, of coming to Russia because there's this idea that it's somehow a frightening place. And all I've been trying to present to people and show people, I think, is that there's only ever what I see or my truth and my truth from this place is that I love it. I feel very safe here. Much safer than in London, for example. And I also find people here to be really Russian first. So they identify as Russian to me. And that's a real different from the country that I went from.

OB: Let me pick up on that point, because you had one tweet specifically about St. Petersburg that seemed to rile a lot of people. You describe this city as a place untouched by the myth of multiculturalism and deranged diversity. And I'm sure you've seen all those dozens of replies of people pointing out to you that this is THE most multicultural city in the whole of Russia.

KH: I hate all that. And, of course, 160 nationalities and built by Italians and the French and the buildings and the Dutch name and whatever.

OB: We also have a very vibrant Muslim community who petitioned the tsar for the first Mosque...

KH: ...first Mosque, 5000 people... Yeah. No, I've heard it all. I've seen it. I get what people are saying. I get them. But when you come to St. Petersburg as an outsider, I'm an outsider. It feels Russian. People, if you speak to people in the street, or with help, when I speak to people in the street, they identify as Russian first. You go to the UK, you won't find any of that.

OB: Russian may mean an ethnic affiliation or it may mean a national affiliation. So most of the different nationalities whom we love to have in this city would also identify as Russian. I wonder if you, given that you like it so much, maybe multiculturalism is not such a bad thing after all.

KH: No, because I don't buy your definition of multiculturalism at all. And just because you have one mosque with 5000 people able to fit into it, that does not in any way replicate the Europe that I know. I've just come from Belgium, Molenbeek, in fact. The jihadi capital of Europe, where they have 22 mosques in a six-kilometer square. Do you have miles or kilometers here?

OB: Kilometers.

KH: Yeah, six kilometers squared area, 22 mosques. So it's very different for me where I live in terms of our multiculturalism, which is much more about monocultures who live in ghettos and don't rub shoulders. It's a very different definition to the one that you might understand.

OB: I actually want to discuss that. But before we do that, many of the tweets that you have posted have these hashtag Putin box which...

KH: Yes.

OB: Which I find very ironic because here in Russia, you wouldn't be allowed by law to say or publish many things that you say about the Muslims in particular, because in this society we do prioritize social cohesion over freedom of speech. And that has been like that over many years, I would even argue centuries. And I think it only intensified under Putin. Do you still think he rocks?

KH: Yeah, I think Putin rocks in many ways, mostly...

OB: But he stands contrary to most of your ideas. I mean, he he would be absolutely appalled by many of the things you're saying.

KH: That's fine as well. I think you started out by saying, you know, do we live in a society where we can disagree but still sit in the same room? I don't mind if Putin thinks many of my ideas are morally abhorrent. That's absolutely his right to have his views. I hold my views very clearly and very dearly. For me, I come from a country where there is an Islamic takeover going on. I come from a country where my daughters, our daughters are targeted by Islamic jihadists. And that's not I'm not free to say any of the things I say...

OB: But why would Putin rock then? I mean, I understand your baggage...

KH: So why does Putin rock to me? Because, for Too long, the West has painted him as a monster, and I don't think it's acceptable any longer. Should he be back in the G8? Absolutely. Does he need to have sanctions against him? No, I don't. I don't have a problem with Putin in the way that other people seem to. Or maybe you have.

OB: Well, I don't know if you follow Putin's statements, but just last week, he spoke again about the need to relax immigration rules in Russia. He specifically pointed out that people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds should be welcomed, especially if they have some connection to Russia or the so-called Russian world. He seems to be far more bullish on immigration, particularly Muslim immigration, than Theresa May's government. Does it...

KH: I don't know. I don't know if you could bend down on, you know, if you could sort of cow in submission to religion more than we have. We have de facto Sharia law in the UK right now. We prevented a journalist from coming into our country on the basis of future hate speech as yet unsaid. That is a bizarre situation to live in. So I think we have it much worse...

OB: Well, this country also has its very peculiar understanding of the freedom of speech. But bringing your back to the Muslim immigration or any immigration for that matter. I think the difference is how our societies are handling it and in this country it would not be considered advisable to put people in high density neighborhoods. There would be not only required...

KH: Agreed...

OB: Not only required to integrate, but the state would actually facilitate that integration.

KH: I know. On that you and I completely agree. You know, I've seen multiple examples in the no go zones that I visited across Europe where migrants are all packed away into the suburbs. It never works. It creates a situation where there's them and us. If you go to Sweden, if you go to Belgium, if you go to parts of London, there's parts of London, Sweden, Belgium, you can't walk anymore. If you're a Western woman and you have your hair uncovered, you'll be spat at and called white trash. That's never going to work. And if you have a system here where you are able to integrate, of course, that's going to work much better. But we don't have multiculturalism. It's what I was explaining to you. We have a system of monocultures living in ghettos. That's a very different thing.

OB: Now, much of Russia's immigration comes from the so-called 'stans". Kazakhstan, Tajikistan Uzbekistan and Europe famous or infamous for referring to London as Londonistan, which you have to agree it carries some pejorative connotations...

KH: Oh, it is pejorative, absolutely. That's why I use this...

OB: What's wrong with stans?

KH: The reason I call London Londonistan is because to me, it's completely fallen to the control of the Muslim mayor there, Sadiq Khan. He is spectacularly useless at his job. Under Sidique Khan, there are some statistics that I'm sure neither you nor I could argue about in the sense that our murder rate is now higher than New York, in the sense to our stop rate has just gone up by 25 percent in the number of acid attacks that are happening, 60 moped attacks a day with hammers and machetes. That's life in Londonistan under the Muslim mayor. What I see from that is the lack of control, a lack of law and order and a political Islam that, well, religion and politics are integrated and people vote according to their faith. And that is not democracy.

From what you describe, you seem to have the beef with the...

KH: Stans. Yes I do.

OB: Uncontrolled immigration and immigration policies. And yet the way you express it, it is pejorative in a much broader sense because stans, stans mean countries, not cities. Why would you...

KH: Because London is a country of its own and that's precisely why...

OB: And you do realize...

KH: It is pejorative, yes.

OB: By making that statement, you are mocking other countries rather than the UK authorities who are not being responsible...

KH: I'm mocking the UK authorities. I'm mocking the Muslim mayor of London and the country that he's built there. Where 89-95% of some areas, So if I think about Tower Hamlets, Newham, 80-90% Muslim population, that does not reflect multiculturalism. That is not a multicultural country or a city. And when he speaks, he speaks only for London. And yet he appears to speak for the UK of someone like myself, who comes from a place called the rest of the UK. It's intensely frustrating.

OB: But getting... I think you do understand that when you referrer to Londonistan as some people may draw conclusions about yourself without hearing your argument first, because I think that this point that you you've been making about imported monocultures yet exist in isolation. This is a very valid and valid and underdiscussed point in my view.

KH: Agreed.

OB: It's a real sociological issue that has to be studied. And yet, that's in, that issue seems to be brushed under the table because people take offense at you. Don't you think that the style of your presentation undermines the very valid argument you're making?

KH: Not or my money, because, you know, there is a part from the kind of social study of monocultures that I think is so imperative, and that's why I've done the work I've done in Sweden, in Sicily and all of the no go zones that I visit. I do actually want Sidique Khan to be out. I want him out of office. I want to champion getting him out of office.

OB: And will you achieve that by referring to London as Londonistan?

KH: I think we spend far too much time tiptoeing around issues these days. I think it's one of the reasons I think your line of questioning is good because you come straight to the point and it's very much the style that I use with my commentary, especially if you use the format like Twitter. You haven't got 45 minutes to chat chat around the subject. You've got a few words to make your point.

OB: Katie, with all due respect, I would never compare anyone to cockroaches. I think you can find a more expressive metaphor. I mean, I know there's this whole controversy about you and the column.

KH: I think it was very fair. I think I think you're undermining the column which still stands today. So 2014, if you bring it up, I was going to talk about it. 2014, I wrote a column that compared migrants across the we need to give it reference...cockroaches. I said they're like cockroaches because they have an enduring nature. They seem to be able to survive no matter what we were taught in schools. The only creature that can survive a nuclear holocaust is cockroaches. That still applies today.

OB: That's still applies today, but everybody is arguing about your choice of words rather than the issue you were trying to raise...

KH: Boats are arriving right now. Have we stopped the boats? No. Did 932 migrants just arrive on a boat? Yes.

OB: Because everybody is arguing whether using cockroach was a nice way of...

KH: Tell me. While you're arguing about cockroaches, tell me where is the...

OB: Well there are many resilient species, come on.

KH: Tell me.

OB: Well, you could have compared them to whales or seagulls.

KH: That is not my question. Whales? That would be a bizarre way of writing copy and very poor English. But let me ask you a question. The Aquarius, with I think 632 could be nine hundred thirty-two, I apologize for not knowing...Let's say six hundred thirty-two migrants on board. It has nowhere to dock. Italy just said, no, we won't have you. Tell me: What would you do about that?

OB: If you broke it, you own it. It was in part Western and primarily UK policy that created the mess in Libya. And if you created that mess in those neighborhoods, you should expect certain repercussions for yourself. You contribute...

KH: So what..so what port...which port should take them? Italy won't. Malta said no.

OB: You guys have to chip in as well. That's...

KH: That's no solution.

OB: Why is it not solution to send your ships to a foreign country or to send your special forces there to unravel the life there and then refuse to accept them?

KH: We shouldn't be running ferry boats across the med that's in no way...

OB: Come on. You are a common sense lady. And what you're trying to tell me is that causes don't have consequences. You are simply trying to wish them away. And I don't think that's a common sense solution. Seriously.

KH: I think you're overlooking this idea that people say they're running from something, they're fleeing something. In my opinion, and it seems surprising to me, I would think as a mum, it seems surprising to you. Why is it these young men of fighting age are running away? But if it's that terrifying there, why do they leave their women?

OB: Have you been to Libya?

KH: I've been on the coast of southern Italy trying to get those NGO boats.

OB: I've been to Libya and I can tell you...

KH: Why do they leave their women and children behind? If it's so terrifying, tell me that. Answer my question.

OB: Well, because, first of all, many of them are not married, that most of the people who migrate into Europe...

KH: So just the young men come.

OB: Yes.

KH: It so scary in Libya they leave the women behind. Really?

OB: Yes.

KH: All they managed to bring is their mobile phone. Really?

KH: Yes.

KH: Oh, really?

OB: Yes, because...

KH: We completely disagree.

OB: Well, we certainly disagree on that. But don't you think that...

KH: No.

OB: I mean, I understand your point on immigration, but don't you think that by arguing this line of argument, you're also absolving your own government of its responsibilities because it did contribute to the mess and you recognize that in your argument on Syria for example...

KH: And the solution...

OB: You do not support the UK government's policies in Syria.

KH: The solution is not to bring people on ferry boats run by charities. The solution is in...

OB: So what is the solution? TO seal them there?

KH: So the solution is an in-country solution. Just as in Syria and other migrant camps, we've suggested facilitating in-country solution because of course...

OB: But you don't want to send them money for that. The UK is very () about allocating money...

KH: We do actually give additional money...

OB: well it's not Well, it's not enough to rebuild the country.

KH: The answer is certainly not to bring those people to our countries. And I think the boat like the Aquarius and NGOs that are running the ferry service, I think it's utterly irresponsible in all that it does is encourages more people to come and potentially lose their lives on the Med. And that seems to me the opposite of what you would want to happen.

Well, get. Let's take a very short break now, but we will be back in just a few seconds. Stay tuned.

OB: Welcome back to Worlds Apart with Katie Hopkins, British journalist and media personality. Katie, just before the break, we were talking about multiculturalism, and I want to repeat the point that you made earlier that you believe that the UK hasn't been able to achieve it. What you have is, you know, ghettos of individual cultures rather than, you know, true diversity, the mixing of various cultures. And yet you also wrote in your book and you made that point over and over again in many of your interviews that you wouldn't let your kid play with anyone who isn't called Margaret, Nigel, Donnell, let alone Mohammed. Isn't that the very attitude that fosters cultural ghettos in the first place?

KH: Right. Well, this was less of a cultural thing in the sense of different ethnic backgrounds. This is my experience from going to a state school in the UK. And you could tell I had this kind of idea as a mom doing the school run. You could tell what a kid would be like by his name. And I still stand by that. So there are certain names that I hear. And it would be Tyler. It'll be Destiny. All of these kind of names.

OB: But you also mentioned the name Mohammed.

KH: Well, Mohammed, if you think about it, in the UK, and it's shocking to me, the number one name in the U.K. is Mohammed, the number two name in the UK is Mohammed. And I find that from a demographic perspective, it's very frightening that actually by 2050, there'll be more Muslim births in the UK than there will be British births. And I find that actually quite distressing.

OB: You know, I have a kid who is born to a Muslim father. He's four years old...

KH: Is he called Mohammed?

He...his name is different, but...

KH: It's not Mohammed.

OB: It is a Muslim name.

KH: But is it Mohammed?

OB: It is not Mohammed, but it is a Muslim name.

KH: Well done.

OB: I wonder...Well, I mean, I would have called him Mohammad if...

KH: But then everyone's called Mohammed. So how do you know who's your Mohammed?

OB: Oh, I think in Russia, I would have a lesser problem finding a Mohammad at the playground.

KH: Let me ask you a question. If you have a Muslim husband...

OB: First, let me ask you a question. Would you ban your kid from playing with my kid? Because he has a Muslim sounding name.

KH: No. As long as he had, I mean, it wasn't really done on names other than I could tell what a kid would be like with their names. But it was about the fact that they were maybe would turn up to school without their homework or they turn up without the right uniform. They don't have the manners that I prefer for my children. And I am.

OB: And what I think a Muslim families are not as diligent as...

KH: It was never about Muslim families. It was about the types of families that I met in the school playground and the types of mums that I wasn't particularly keen on. Whatever we say, we all know the mums that we like and the mums that we don't like. I was just really honest about it.

But regardless of whether you were referring to like a British kid or a Muslim kid, isn't that fundamentally anti-Christian thing to say? Because, you know, you talk about Christian...

KH: I've done a lot of anti-Christian things in my life. I am not a good ambassador for the Christian religion.

OB: And yet you talk a lot about Christian values as underpinning...

KH: No, I'm just criticizing myself, because if you see any of the stuff that I've done, I mean, I think many Christians would want to distance themselves from me entirely. But what I noticed about people with strong beliefs, particularly here in St. Petersburg. You know, it's a joy to be surrounded by so many Christian churches, by the Orthodox people that believe so strongly, 90 percent of people here believe in the Christian faith. That's key. The second thing, I haven't finished. The second thing I really think about the Christian faith, having watched people in South Africa who are being persecuted, is there is a real belief in God and the land. And people need something to believe in. And I really respect that. Even though I'm a bad ambassador for Christianity.

OB: Katie, let me correct you a little bit, because...

KH: You're gonna try and correct stats.

OB: This is one of the most atheist cities in Russia.

KH: We can argue about stats all you want. It's a very Christian feeling city.

OB: I mean, feeling is in the eyes of the beholder. But if you actually poll people here...

KH: Let me ask you the questions I wanted to ask you. So you have a Muslim husband, right?

OB: Yeah.

KH: Let me ask you a question via you for him. If Islam is so fantastic, why do Muslims always flee to Christian countries?

OB: I'll tell you why, because Christian countries or Western countries, to be more precise, tend to send troops to their countries, destroy their homes and cut them out of their neighborhoods. That's why.

KH: But why come to Christian countries? Why not go to Saudi or another Muslim country?

OB: Well, because Saudi does Saudi Arabia actually prevents their Muslim neighbors from going there...

KH: Ah...so why is that?

OB: The UK government And the government or the US...

KH: So why does Saudi prevent migrants going there?

OB: Look, I'm not an ambassador for the Saudi government. Probably because it is a repressive government.

KH: Isn't it because Christian lands are free and tolerant and open. And it's not the very thing that Muslims try and change when they arrive in our country? That's my question and my challenge in the UK.

OB: But, when you say that Christian lands are tolerant you I'm tolerant or when when you actually...

KH: Open, tolerant, welcoming, enabling people to practice religion and then they try and take over.

OB: And yet you actively and publicly advocate for the rejection for the shunning of children, for the ostracizing of children based on their names.

KH: Yes.

OB: And you call that tolerant and open?

KH: No, I'm not saying, I said a million times: I'm not a great ambassador for being Christian. But I'm asking you, why do Muslims always seem to come to Christian countries and then want to take over?

OB: Well, I thought I actually tried to answer because many Western countries waged wars on Muslim countries...

KH: But why go there then? Why not go to Saudi? Why not go to another country? Where the Muslim faith is practiced? Tell me?

OB: Because when you have a kid on your hands you try to find any refuge, literally, you would go across the Mediterranean, even if you don't know how to swim. You would do anything possible for you for your two your old or three-year-old.

KH: We don't see any women and children on the boat across the Med.

OB: We do see. But even though I would agree that they're primarily men...

KH: Six hundred and twenty something on the Aquarius eleven children. We don't see many women and children, I promise you. They're left behind.

OB: Well, I have reported extensively from the ground both in Libya and in Syria. So believe me, I also think you could afford me some credibility. And there are...

KH: I'm not questioning your credibility.

OB: ...women and children in desperate conditions. But it is more difficult for them to move around, that's for sure. Now, I've followed you long enough to conclude that there are some issues that are very close to your heart that I think you believe in passionately, and yet there are those things that you seem to throw out there for controversy to simply propel your argument. Can you yourself tell one from the other?

KH: I think it's trite to imagine that I say things just to be controversial. You would not withstand the level of attacks, of police harassment, of detention, of having my passport taken, of social services being called on my children, of my family being under threat, of having two jihadists plot to behead me in November 2017. I don't believe you would withstand those levels of people trying and trying to silence you if you didn't believe what you said. That may convince you will not. I'm not seeking to. I'm only trying to give people an understanding of what it's like to try and speak freely and openly with my views, which are known for being very strong. So you would have to really question yourself, why would I do this if I didn't really believe what I say? And I believe my country can be better. I believe in Donald Trump and I believe Japan, Russia and America are going to be the three leaders that fight back against the globalists. So that's my kind of part of my enthusiasm for Putin here as well.

OB: You mention the silencing of dissenting view. And I totally hear you. I personally have been looked into by Ofcom a couple of times...

KH: They're paper shufflers.

ON: ...but I would at least agree with you that there is a political censorship, liberal political censorship going on in a number of Western countries. But when I hear certain views, again, postulating that children could be mistreated because of their names...

KH: That's that's that's not that is not a fair summary of what I've said. At all. At all.

OB: No, but because...

KH: No, no. That is not a fair summary of what I said. I said I wouldn't invite certain children to my house if they had a certain name. That is not mistreatment.

OB: I don't know if you know how feeling rejected, you know, feeling rejected is pretty painful for a child. I can tell you from my own experience, I am pretty sure you had that experience yourself in your life. So what do you say that certain children are not to be engaged with and families are to be looked down to, you know...

KH: You're laboring that point to be fair.

OB: What do you mean?

KH: There's plenty of other arguments we could have apart from a child children's name debate.

OB: Well, anyway. When you raise an issue like that, some people may indeed support the argument for a certain degree of censorship. Don't you think that by laying out something as controversial as we just discussed, you actually provide a motive? A justification for curtailing genuine political debate...

KH: I think laboring a really facile point. I think the reason I have so much support, the reason I have close to a million followers on Twitter, the reason the articles I put up on, most read and most viewed is because people identify with the things I'm saying, because what we no longer have in this society are people that will tell the truth to power. And I'm not at all frightened of that. I'm not at all frightened up of saying we need my country back. We should not be bowing down to people who choose different things...

OB: But there is a difference about... between criticizing your government on irresponsible migration policy....

KH: I am criticizing the parents.

OB: ...and talking about children...

KH: No, I criticize parents. No, there's not. Some parents don't deserve to be parents. They aren't good enough parents. That's also perfectly true. You're just taking offence on behalf of other people. Many people agree with me and disagree with you. That's also OK. We can be relaxed about that.

OB: Yeah, but I don't understand why do you have to, because you are very passionate, why do you have to mix those very substantive points?

KH: Because I know those things. I'm a mother. I'm a wife. I'm a pretty poor Christian. I'm a traveler. I'm an anti-immigrant kind of personality. I believe in politics. I'm many things. I'm not just the kind of person that sits in front a camera. A big part of who I am is a mom. And there's certain mums who don't really deserve to be mums because they don't bring their children up properly.

OB: Since our time is running out, I do want to ask you one more question about censorship. I know that you are very concerned about the Tommy Robinson case, a very swift sentencing and jailing of a person for their reporting on a politically sensitive case in defiance of a court order and...

KH: Majority Pakistani Muslim (censored).

OB: From what I know, the British system has a long tradition of legal precedent. Do you fear that you yourself, with the views that you hold, may find yourself in a similar legal situation?

KH: Well, I imagine I probably am top of the list now for being imprisoned for my views. And what concerns me about Tommy Robinson, not, people will say, well, it was contempt of court, he shouldn't have been reporting now. I understand all that. I think the two key questions are where was the swift justice for the majority Pakistani Muslim pedophile gangs, when told me Robertson was sentenced in five hours to 13 months? And secondly, I see it very much. You have the Scripal case here. Well, there was an, a, Putin was alleged to have poisoned individuals on UK soil. I don't see any difference between the Scripal case with Putin and what our government has done to Tommy Robinson. They've put him in prison. He will not survive in prison. One guard let the Muslim gangs into his cell. He's done. So I think the British government is no better than Putin in any regard because it silences political people that it doesn't like to hear just in the same way that it is alleged that Putin did. And so we are no better than Russia.

OB: If you're concerned that you may be next, is that is that going to change the way you work?

KH: No. Not at all. Not at all. If I am imprisoned for my views, then it seems to me it's not the truth teller that will be in the wrong. It will be the authority. And I would hope that there will be a new legion of other outspoken individuals like myself that will come and fill my shoes and I will write a new book, I guess, that route behind bars.

OB: Well, it's been a pleasure talking to you. Thank you very much for your time.

KH: Thank you.

OB: I encourage our viewers to keep this conversation going in our social media pages. And for me, hope to see you again: same place, same time, here, on Worlds apart.

Tommy Robinson’s Long Walk - to court and to prison - with Katie Hopkins

Duration: 15:41 198,697 views

12K likes

400 dislikes

Channel: Katie Hopkins OFFICIAL

Published on 14 Jul 2019 Retrieved on July 15, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4NSpTvb3hI

Katie Hopkins: I'm here for the sentencing of Tommy Robinson at the Old Bailey today, real kind of sense of, oh, there's something in the air here. It's excitement. Is it nervousness? I feel nervous for Tommy. Can't imagine what it's like for them coming down on the train or about to go meet him off the train. Press pack already here. I would say a crowd of about 200 forming and banks and banks of police officers here. So nervous time and a real sense that this is the state versus the people.

KH: How are you doing?

Tommy Robinson: Okay, and you alright?

KH: And you?

TR: I think we are just shocked.

KH: Shocked that this got this far.

TR: How can they just don't get how they can do it? Not when you read it. If anyone so anyone watches the video?

KH: Yes.

TR: If anyone watches the video. Then see what the judges are saying or done. Yeah. It's not there. It's not on the video. They're saying that I incited my followers to attack the people. It's not in the video. I didn't do it.

KH: You didn't incite them. They're calling it vigilante.

TR: I didn't ask. I was talking to the media. I was addressing the media is asking the media, why do you harass us? Why do you follow us? These men these men are now convicted of raping children. They will walk in the streets. What do you follow them?

KH: Yeah.

TR: I was saying to the media. What do you say to.

KH: Why don’t you follow the guys raping our children?

TR: They're all on bail. they’re working in chicken shops. They working with children. They still have contact with children. That's what I found out. That's why I went up there. Why don't journalists go and take pictures of them? Why do you always harass us? That's all I was asking. It was a rhetorical-I was and I specifically mentioned the media. I said, you go take pictures and put them online and slander us. And then they took one line out of that, and have an hour-long discussion. And they've convicted me on-

KH: Was there ever a chance that you were going to get a fair trial?

TR: Well, it's not a fair trial would be a jury. But the reason why you have a jury is for fair justice. That's the reason the Magna Carta. That's the English common law. But this is through the back door. The Attorney-General, the government, have managed to get me before appointed judges. This judge was appointed two weeks ago. She was appointed two weeks ago. Appointed judges in order to convict me and even my barristers are just like, "How can they find you guilty for taking pictures of people walking into court."

KH: Tell me what's in your bag.

TR: That's a blow-up doll.

KH: A blow-up doll? Not a bad plan.

TR: My shorts, just comfortable stuff, my slippers, my shorts, trainers, pants, socks.

KH: A tuner?

TR: No, no, tuner, no. You're not allowed to bring that in.

KH: Are you ready for another weight loss regime in prison?

TR: I'm ready. my kids aint.

KH: and your wife? People are with you, though, you know that don’t you? You alright? (TR starts crying) Oh. Oh, it's gonna be all right.

TR: I'm just shocked.

KH: Oh man, there's a lot of people out there now Tommy. So what you're going to do is you're going to go up there, you're going to stick your chin up-

TR: I’m going to go out there because my head-

KH: and you'll get your chin up on your shoulder back, for your children.

TR: Yeah, and I said to my son, I’ve been convicted of journalism. And that's why. I mean, if you're an American to understand what's happening. Yes. I'm probably getting- there will be an attempt on my life in this prison.

KH: there will.

TR: How can I be get put in jail? I asked. I asked someone how you feel about your verdict. That's it. As a journalist, I didn't break any laws. Any anyone who investigates this case looks at the laws. I haven’t broke the laws, my barrister-

KH: Tell me who you do all this for Tommy. Tell me who is all this or why are you doing all this?

TR: I do this for my kids. I said it's not just my kids because it's why I have a difficult conversation with my wife. Even my son said my son said I said, like, I'm going to go and my son said-because my barrister had said, if you apologized today, they will mitigate and they would reduce the sentence if you apologize. I got offered a deal where if I apologized and pled guilty last year, this would've gone. I said, how can-.

KH: You wouldn't apologise.

TR: How can I apologize? How can I apologize? My my ultimate goal is to raise awareness of what's happening to our daughters across this country. If this judge sentences me to a big prison sentence today, she's going to do my job for me.

KH: And if you die inside, you die because of what?

TR: It's gonna go. For for- That's why I said the cause- for the cause of our daughters, every single town and city. For people in America to understand-it happened to my cousin. literally children -in every town and city- English children being kidnapped and taken and what they've done now, what they're trying to do is we work for years to bring it to the forefront. And then they had to report it. We had the Robin report. And then now in 2014, the Law Commission told them the Law Commission done an investigation into contempt of court and reporting restrictions. They advised the attorney general that they need to create one national website and all of their little secret trials that they are having should be listed on this one website. They didn't do that. They haven't done that. And the reason haven’t done that, because if there was one of those Web sites, you'd go on, you'd look at the website and you'd see hundreds and hundreds of Muslim names and reporting restrictions, where there's cases going on now across the country.

KH: Are you scared?

TR: Of course I'm terrified. I've got three- I've got three beautiful children I just had to kiss goodbye for the fourth time on this case. All I've done is hold my iPhone. All I've done is hold my phone up and report. I've reported. If this is if this was happening to a journalist in any other country in Russia and China, our politicians would all be screaming from the rooftops. All of them. But instead, this way Americans need to understand, your rights, your freedoms will be chipped away, chipped away, chipped away. They've disappeared, but bit by bit. And as they disappear, the CNNs, the BBCs, they're all celebrating.

KH: When will people start to care?

TR: When I'm killed in prison, hopefully. I just said I always say defining moments change. I've said it before. A defining moment, changes the direction of the country. Let this be the defining moment, because I just don't understand how they can do it and why they can do it. It's all wrong. It's going against their own laws. It's going against their own laws.

KH: We're going to get up the stairs here - we can go this way.

TR: Do you know. You know, even our ability. So basically-.

(someone heckles him on the walk)

TR: Dickheads

KH: Don't worry, ignore. Ignore. Ignore.

TR: The mainstream media will push their lies. The mainstream media will push their lies continually, and I don't even- because of the censorship they have removed us from everything. They're taking our ability to argue.

KH: No, they just make you a non-person.

TR: And give our side of the story and all of this can happen, you can be taken off the streets- I'm going to be in prison for the second time, you know one of those rapists. One of those child rapist has never face justice because the judge gave him bail, he's gone home to Pakistan.

KH: Yes.

TR: I'm about to go to jail for the second time, just for asking HIM how he feels about his verdict.

KH: Do you think, you feel, do you hear the level of support out in the rest of the UK, people like you know, my friends, my parents' friends. They see you as a good guy.

TR: I see it in every town and city.

KH: Do you see it?

TR: If I didn't see, I'd really get disheartened. But every town and city, I see that the British public, which is where again - if you're in America. We've been scared into silence. Our entire population think things. They're too scared to say it because there is no free speech. We live in a post-free speech era. There's no free speech now. There's no freedom of the press.

KH: No. But you understand that England is two places. There's London and the rest of the UK. You know that in the rest of the UK you have massive support.

TR: Even in London as well when I walk around.

KH: In London, of course.

TR: But yeah.

KH: But the mainstream media and the press aren't allowing people to hear that support.

TR: They've run their narrative - if you were from another country. If you come in and look at our media, you'd think Donald Trump was hated - You'd think even Donald Trump was hated. I say if Donald Trump was in England, he would be arrested and tried for hate speech. The mayor would make sure of it. Sadiq Khan would make sure of it.

KH: Yes.

TR: The dark forces that have been in play in the American elections, in all the politics in America are the same dark forces, which are censoring me today.

KH: They are. And would you say that you are, you know, ahead of America - where we go, America follows America will be right behind us.

TR: Your freedoms are going to go in the same way - the Democrats would - if the Democrats were in power now, they'd already be banned, they'd erode and erode and chip and chip. and whilst they do it, the corporate globalist media will celebrate it, support it, run the fake narrative, run the agenda and they will destroy anyone's name.

KH: And if you had a message for Americans, what's your message as you head to court to be sentenced? Maybe put in prison? What's your message for America?

TR: Britain has fallen. It's already fallen. Our judiciary system is corrupt. Politicians are corrupt our are media corrupt. The message for America. Hold onto the things you love- freedom. But because it will go, and it will go like that (snaps fingers). And then, I cannot believe I'm about to be sent to jail for for acting as a journalist and asking a simple question. Any - The thing is, the video is there for everyone to watch. Anyone can watch and see that I have committed no crimes. I've broke no laws.

KH: Yes.

TR: I've broke no laws.

KH: And where is your wife and children today? They are at home?

TR: I've just had-my kid. My kids are in the-Ugh

KH: Somewhere, okay. Can you hear that noise?

TR: I can.

KH: What do you think?

TR: I think that they essentially, when they imprisoned me last summer, I hated it. I come out it. I come out a mess.

KH: You were tiny.

TR: I know yeah.

KH: You had lost like four stone.

TR: I know. I had come out a mess but at the same time it had woken so many people. People need, We need to see injustice to wake up because at the minute everyone in this country become so selfish and are plodding along as enablers. As long as I'm okay. As long as I'm okay. That's how everyone's thinking. An entire generation of cowardice. People need to witness injustice and to feel that injustice. And what happened last time, I saw how many people felt. If they sent me to prison today, a lot of people are going to feel it, more than just me and my family. A lot of the public will feel it.

KH: And listening to that in the background. You can hear "Tommy Tommy" that chant. How does that make you feel when you hear that?

TR: I feel like I never feel alone anyway. That's one thing. And I also know and I'm confident that whilst I'm in jail my family will be - my family will be looked after no matter what happens here. I say in confidence now that my family will be looked after.

KH: So there's a sense of not feeling alone, even though the state have tried to make you feel like you're completely alone.

TR: Oh, yeah. Everywhere I walk yeah, when I walk into any pub in any town or city. I'll get a hero's reception. I haven't a bought a beer for years.

KH: Heyyy, good skills good skills. That's a bonus.

TR: Hahaha. So I get a hero's reception. So essentially this myth I'm hated, is just a myth.

KH: I know.

TR: Same with you. You know what it's like, when you walk around and it's um, it's Danny.

And I just think that I've got nothing to apologize for.

KH: No.

TR: I will not apologize. I have been convicted so the people understand what the wording means of causing anxiety to the Muslim pedophiles by asking them how they feel about their verdict. That's enough to cause them anxiety, which might make them fearful to come back into court, which impedes the course of justice, which is why I think it's insane. Even my barrister, I said, how are we going to go before the trial? They said they are in trouble because the law is the law. But the law is the law. The law is the law. It doesn't matter. They've gone against the law.

KH: Yes, the law. They say the law is the law, but it's just their interpretation of whatever they want the law to be.

TR: Whatever they want. And that's it. That's what people need to understand and see. We don't have a fair system.

KH: And if you end up in a prison for causing anxiety to Muslim pedophiles, majority Pakistani Muslim pedophiles.

TR: Who have been on bail for two years who have been walking around, one of them is- its left, innit? It's left.

KH: Well, I tell you what, we can't get to prison if we don't go to court.

TR: I know. Hahaha

TR: I see the pattern I see. I understand how much it means to everyone else who doesn't feel like they have got a voice. This is the government's attempt to silence that voice for everyone. If they can do this to me, they can do it to you, they can do it to everyone.

KH: Sign his t-shirt, well done good lad.

TR signs a kid's t-shirt.

Other journalist asks TR: Tell us about yourself, and how has it been?

TR: And you see, I'm in court for doing what you have just done. This is contempt of court. That's why I have been convicted. You're a journalist.

Journalist: That's a bit of a snowflake attitude, I am just asking a question.

TR: I'm telling you, I am being jailed for doing what you've just done. I'm not saying what you have done is wrong. just saying that-

Journalist: There's no- there's no reporting restrictions on this case.

TR: No, no, my conviction was for causing anxiety to Muslim people, that's my conviction.

Journalist: So why the asylum claim, you tell me about the response you have received.

TR: I have had a great response. How can I be sent to jail for asking a pedophile how he feels about his sentence. That's all I asked. Anyone can watch that. You can spread your fake news live for the corporatist globalist media, wherever you want, no one trusts you, no one believes you. That's why everyone follows me.

Journalist: So why you're asking for asylum then?

TR: Why I'm asking for it? Because I'm about. There's six Muslims in jail right now that want to kill me. Because I am being imprisoned illegally.

Journalist: You were in prison last year. Wasn’t that threat there?

TR: I spent three months in solitary confinement. My mental health was damaged. And they know that intentionally. If I spent two years in solitary confinement, it will destroy me and they know that.

Crowd chants: We want Tommy out, we want Tommy out!

Tommy starts meeting supporters in the crowd.

TR: As you can see I am not alone.

KH: Right you are not alone.

Crowd chants: Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, Tommy!

KH narrating: And in this moment, he really is part of something much bigger. An army of patriots, proud and loyal, wanting to stand up for a better Britain. All these silenced voices suddenly louder than ever before. But as Tommy takes his bags and hugs his mates, it's him alone that has to face the courts, one man standing up for our daughters against the system and the state.

KH: I'm just out of court watching Tommy Robinson be sentenced for the crime of contempt of court. No one else has ever been sent to prison for this crime. But of course, Tommy Robinson has. In fact, the judge said there's no sentencing guidelines for this type of crime. What she said essentially was that she needed to make an example out of Tommy to deter other people from doing the same. So he's actually got 19 weeks because of time already served. He will only have to do half of that in prison. So half of 19 weeks is what Tommy will actually spend inside jail. But I think just as a mother watching Tommy go down behind the Perspex glass, go down those stairs with all the keys going and the prison officers, there's a real sense of, you know, what is this country doing to a guy who is just using his phone, repeating information in the public domain? This really is the state versus the people. But what's a great thing to see here today with so many people gathered is that the people still haven't given up.

Tommy Robinson in his own words... 176,659 views

8.7K likes

492 dislikes

Channel: Katie Hopkins OFFICIAL Published on 10 Jul 2019 Retrieved on July 20, 2019

Duration: 29:03 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvNd-Zoo4oU

Katie Hopkins: So, Tommy, what I want to do is allow the viewer to come on a journey with you, and I think what matters, first up, is to hear why you got to a place that you were at the court that day in Leeds that led to your arrest. So take me to you growing up, where did you grow up?

Tommy Robinson: So I grew up in Luton town. It's a working-class town with a very diverse population. It's come from, so I was born in 1982. When I was born 1982 we had one mosque. Now we have 35. So I've watched that change in the town. Just so people understand, Luton was the launch place, the 7 7 bombers. It was the the home of the fertilizer bomb plot. It's in fact, so many terrorist atrocities have been linked to Luton. (indecipherable), who are now proscribed terrorist organisation, Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, who's in prison in America, their head office was in Luton.

KH: So Luton town for you was home. You grew up there. Your mum, I think she lives, oh, she...you grew up with your mum there, mum?

TR: Yes, my mum comes from Ireland. Cause she come from Dublin when she was six or seven with her family. And like most people in Luton, if you line up my thirty friends, thirty best friend, we are all sons of immigrants.

KH: And you are you’re a son of an immigrant?

TR: Everyone's from the sons of immigrants, really, in Luton. And I've seen the town. So that's never been a problem. Everyone's got on fine and integrated fine, assimilated, fine. But growing up, I was trying to understand, there was something very different about what I saw as which I first thought was a Pakistani problem. I saw the Pakistani community showed a hostility towards everyone who wasn't Pakistani. And then, only after growing up and learning Islam, I understand there was the segregation of separation taught to them through Islam.

KH: So in Luton, growing up, you know, you're there, you're growing up as a young lad and you're seeing that there's all these different people, you're all mixing fine. But there seems to be this one population, the Muslim population of those that believe in Islam, that don't want to belong. Don't want to integrate.

TR: If I just put into basic terms, if you went into the school dinner hall in my school...

KH: In a state school, normal school.

TR: Yeah, in a normal school. You'd have white sitting with black, sitting with some Chinese sitting with some Indians. Everyone's sitting integrated at their tables and in the corner of that dinner hall, you'd have eight tables of Muslims.

KH: Separate.

TR: Separate in everything. I never understood this. I never understood it until I read the Koran. I never understood until I read so many passages and so many verses saying do not be friends with the Christians or the Jews. And that's the first. It was like I had so many lightbulb moments in my life that were just like, now I understand. Now I get why we have this whole segregated Sharia community that are not integrated and are not...they are hostile as well. They are hostile towards us. And that's not all of them, because even in school, I would have made friends with Muslims.

KH: Let me ask you some questions about growing up in Luton and the separation. So this separation of financing, the separation of policing, how does that work in Luton?

TR: So. Right. And another example, again, I give to Luton. When we formed the...well, I formed an organisation in 2009 which is to try and highlight a lot of these problems. And when a journalist first come to see me, I took them up to the state that I was originally grew up in as a child. I said, look at that park. That park is from the 1980s. And then we drove down to the Muslim community. So look at that park. That's a state of the art, three hundred and fifty-thousand-pound park. You want to know why we're frustrated, and we're frustrated because all of the funding, all of the everything has been given and handed an organisation towards the Islamic community, everything. And that's not...I'm not saying it's the Muslim community's fault.

KH: Said for clarity, the funding. So government funding coming through to councils because it's how it's works in the UK, we have councils. You see labour councils and they're pushing funding to the Muslim community, presumably because that's where the votes come from.

TR: So in Luton we have, as I said, it's 30, 40 percent of the town is is Muslim. And when we have elections that 30 40 percent is enough to win the vote because the majority people aren't voting. Now, so if they do a deal and we we've known this for years, the Luton Council of Mosques, which was the leader, would coordinate all the mosques together. They'd sit down with the council, they'd do a deal, they'd then be told, specifically told, who to vote for and how to vote and that they'd regain their power. And as someone from a white working-class background, we've simply were forgot, forgotten and neglected. And that's and that's a feeling that we're looking at the Labour Party who have gone all out and given every other community everything. And that's why even currently white working-class children are the biggest underachievers. In Luton we have The Luton Islamic center, which is a mosque, which was where...the most recent Westminster Bridge...the man who...

KH: The terrorist attack against Westminster.

TR: The terrorist who have done the attack there. He was a paid teacher for that mosque. The fact that the Stockholm bomber was from that mosque. Luton Borough Council funds, from our taxpayers money, that mosque.

KH: And I think you said that 9/11 bombers were celebrated in Luton. Could you explain that?

TR: So just so people understand that... this would be when I start, I formed an organization called the English Defence League in 2009...

KH: English Defence League.

TR: ...in 2009. That wasn't just a spur of the moment thing. That was a buildup of watching my town decay, watching it be taken over, essentially, watching as pure venom and hatred go unchallenged against everybody. And so people understand on September 11th, after September 11th, we had posters and I'll give you...can show you a copy of these.

KH: I'll grab a copy.

TR: The posters were put on all the phone boxes, all the shop windows, Magnificent 19, a celebration of the 19 suicide bombers.

KH: So Magnificent 19. The 19 suicide bombers launched against America at 9/11. They were celebrated in the town of Luton that you grew up in.

TR: And I remember getting phone calls. The college, There'd be no cheers in the college.

KH: And as a reaction to at the age of 21, growing up in this town, you created something called the English Defence League.

TR: First of all, I tried to I tried to first raise my head about at the age of 21 where I I organized a demonstration called Ban the Luton Taliban. Because a group, headed by Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza, Abu Hamza has the hook, he's in American prison. Now, a group their head office was in my town. They were sending people to fight for the Taliban. I organized a demonstration to oppose against them. And from that, I was attacked and targeted and I kept my mouth shut then for five or six years. But then there was a soldier's homecoming parade where our soldiers were attacked and spat upon again by this same group. That's when I formed the English Defense League.

KH: So, soldiers coming home from fighting the Taliban, soldiers coming back. There was a homecoming parade. Those soldiers I remember the footage of this watching it. Those soldiers were spat on. There were protests there. There was a big Muslim gathering, essentially, that were abusive and horrific to our British troops. That's, that was the trigger that caused you to finally set up the English Defence League and actually position yourself then as a target?

TR: Yeah, that was the trigger. And because of what happened when I was 21, I was now 26, because when I was 21, that's why it's so hard to try and cover my face and try and use a different name, cause I knew what's coming.

KH: And then take us from this 21-year-old and then a 26-year-old with the English Defense League. Take us to the Tommy Robinson stood outside court. So just to explain, the thing that led to your arrest. That was an...it's an ongoing court case so we still have to be very careful. It was broken into three parts. One part was done. This was the second trial of a group of men accused of grooming and trafficking young girls. You were stood outside the court on the day of the trial. Correct me if I'm wrong.

TR: On the day of...the trial had finished. So the trial had finished and the jury were there to give their verdict. So the trial had finished. And I was stood down that day. And the reason I stood down today is why I've tried to do since form the English Defence League, I've travelled the country and I've researched and I've spent time with families. And I've seen the true extent of this what is called grooming, which is more of a rape jihad a across our country. And I feel that things are still being hidden and the public are not really aware of the size of this problem. For example, we have young girls that have been murdered and chopped up and put into a kebab minces and no one knows that. We have young girls who had hot iron rods with the letter M and emblazoned...

KH: Branded.

TR: Branded on them and no one knows it.

KH: But you standing there that day, you have your camera. What sort of camera have you got? An iPhone?

TR: I just went with my, I had my iPhone.

KH: And what were you saying?

TR: I was just detailing the men's names. So before I went there, I had researched and I've looked at their contempt of court laws, which which I was aware of. And I was also aware that the judge has no power to put any reporting restrictions on any information that's in the public domain.

KH: And the BBC, our British state news broadcaster, they had already printed I'd seen them. I think I've tweeted them the names of the individuals that was already in the public domain.

TR: All the information I gave was already in the public domain.

KH: And where you were standing outside the court, were you right outside the door, were you inside the door? Where were you? Had you asked someone where you could stand?

TR: Yes. So that morning I'd gone into court to try and get the full details of their reporting restriction. There are so many guidelines that they have to have, for example, on the screen where the men, the defendants names are listed, it has to say there of the reporting restriction. It didn't. I have a photograph of that screen. It did not. There was nothing on the door. So I then stood outside and and obviously, I presumed that the reporting restriction can only be for the verdicts. Because, and for that specific detail from in that trial, it can't possibly be for any information that's already online and out there.

KH: So the trial was, the trial had finished...

TR: The trial had finished.

KH: You were stood outside.

TR: Yes.

KH: You repeated information that was already in the public domain, the names.

TR: Yes.

KH: Did you film any of the men going in.

TR: So, the defendants who were walking into court, yes, I filmed them. I made sure not to film anyone but them. So there was Muslim women walking into court. I turned the camera away from them. I was fully aware that you couldn't record jurors, witnesses or anything like that. But defendants on trials, as anyone would see of any case across the UK, every time I've ever gone into court I photographed and I filmed. So I filmed them, I wasn't aggressive towards them. I asked them how they felt about the verdict that was coming because I was there getting the verdict that day. I asked them a simple question and I was very calm and reasonable and polite. I made sure of that.

KH: Did anyone ask you to stop filming? Did anyone tell you to go away?

TR: No. I actually asked the police officer if I was okay to be filming where I was filming to which I was told yes.

KH: What happened next?

TR: Next I was arrested and I could see more police come in. No one warned me. No, I said this is, no one said anything, actually. I saw the judge up at the window with the police officers. And then all of a sudden, I was handcuffed. I was arrested. I was told I was being held on breach of the peace. And then on Boyd's corner, the first thing I say again is I need to speak to my solicitor. You can't speak to your solicitor. There is no facility for you to speak to your solicitor. I said I need you to get a message to my solicitor. Again, OK? Nope. Then so then I'm taken up before the judge, with no solicitor, no lawyer. I'm taken before the judge, where five minutes of an hour-long video is played. five minutes. And then he says...

KH: Your video.

TR: ...of my video that I made outside court. So then I'm told, I'm taken back down to the cell, when I'm taken down to the cell, a lawyer that is by the state is produced for me. And I say I want my lawyer. I want to speak to my solicitor. He says, you can't. That's not going to happen. And then he's...and then we are taken back up to court again with him present. And this is one of the main reasons why I was released. Why the the top judge of this country absolutely slammed what happened in Leeds court. I'm sitting, when I got to prison, I'm sitting reading all these reports that I pleaded guilty to contempt of court. I wasn't even asked to plead guilty or not guilty. At no point did I stand up and say guilty. He's he sentenced me to 13 months for contempt of court. He then enforced a reporting restriction.

KH: Yes. So we weren't allowed to tell the story of you then being arrested and charged and being sent inside for 13 months. We weren't allowed to write that up as I normally would have, because there was a ban on me or anybody reporting. And indeed, people who had already written a report, removed their reports.

TR: And apparently it's it's this ban, the Section 4, that apparently I've been sent to prison for breaching this reporting restriction. Now, as you've said, some newspapers run stories...

KH: Breitbart, others, of course.

TR: And then they had to remove them. They done, they breached the same law that I've just been sentenced 13 months for. If you read the law, this is where it gets...When he sentenced me for 13 months... in you read the contempt of court law, the judge is not allowed to issue a report restriction. The reason for this is, under contempt of court you don't have a jury. So you have a judge who is the...he arrests you and he's the executioner. He he arrrests you and he sentences you. He hears you, he tries you, he convicts you. Now, how much power that puts in the judge's hands to be able to sentence you without anyone else, that's too much power. By law, he has to instantly let the public know. Anyone can read these laws. So I've gone through everything when I was in prison.

TR: Let's move to prison. How does prison work? When you get to prison? First of all, you're walking in. dressed as you are. What happens to you?

TR: I was booked into reception and I was put on an induction wing go on a wing of prisoners, probably 100 prisoners, three levels. And I was put in my cell.

KH: Describe to me the cell. Describe what I'm seeing.

TR: The cell is a...just a bed. A metal frame bed with...and there's no, it's not a mattress. It's like a blue...

KH: Oh. Those blue squidgy little foam pads they are really.

TR: They're in prison cells. They're about that that thick.

KH: And then won't clean up. They then that that sweaty stuff.

TR: And you're given a bed sheet and you're given a the same blue mat like that as a pillow. A rack hard blue mat. You're given that then you're given a plate and and a TV.

KH: So when you first went to prison after you've done your time on the induction wing they moved you to the hospital. Which which actually was a relatively safe and secure environment for you.

TR: The main induction wing there were Muslims on it, but you have to understand that, in the demographic of the area of the country I was in prison, only 7 percent of that population within the prison were Muslim prisoners.

KH: But then...

TR: But then, so then I had my first legal visit in the prison, where then we booked a visit for the Friday where my QC was gonna come and we were going to discuss my appeal and to appeal the conviction and appeal the sentence. Now, days before that appeal, in the morning, my door opened. They said, you'll go in. And I said, where am I going? I said why am I going? And the reason I'm so confused is that they had me in a position where I was fine. It was very easy for that prison because it could manage you easily...

TR: In the hospital there's no Muslims. So no Muslim prisoners.

KH: So, so moving us along, you were moved to a different prison. Tell us about the new prison.

TR: I was moved. I was taken to from (indecipherable). And then when you get to a prison, you have an original meeting with the prison staff where they talk to you. And he said, well, look, obviously, you're aware there's a large Muslim population in this prison. I said, yes, because it's a London prison. So those in only, it's a London prison. So the population of London, when they go to jail, they go to certain prisons. So it's a London prison. So obviously, we know what the population is going to be. And he said, like, you should self- isolate. And now, self-isolation would be if I was a prisoner and I wanted protection or I was scared, all I'd say is I'm not...

KH: I'm not coming out myself.

TR: I don't want to come out myself. So I said, I'm never going to self-isolate. And they said, well, it's gonna be dangerous. I said, so I said, every time I open my front door, it's dangerous.

KH: So the government, the government, chose to lift you out of the prison where you are being held and were relatively secure in terms of your safety and felt your well-being was relatively managed, and lifted you and moved you to the prison with one of the highest Muslim populations, therefore putting you most at risk.

TR: (prison name) prison was a prison that was governed by the prison staff. I was moved to a prison that was governed by the prisoners.

KH: Did they ever give you a reason why they moved you from (prison name)?

TR: I asked the head governor of the prison: Who has bought me here? He said it's above my pay grade. OK, who is above his pay grade? It's the government.

KH: You're now doing...in your head, 13 months. You've got to be in isolation. You've been put in the block. He's got a mattress. Tell me about your day. How many hours a day are you in that square room?

TR: You're in there twenty-three and a half hours a day. And and then...So you have this the prison cells, they're here and here. And then for 30 minutes, you, they take you out and they put you into a cage that's looked upon by all of the cell windows.

KH: So you're put in a cage like a little animal.

TR: You're put in a cage for 30 minutes where you...You can then walk around for your exercise now. Within minutes of me being put down the block, there were threats and screams and shouts because the prisoners, the Muslims had seen as I'm getting brought in. And the words...what I didn't realise, which I was told, was which I put a complaint in again was that the prison imam had been telling the prison for days before I got there...

KH: That you were coming.

TR: That he's coming..

KH: Was there an instruction against you?

TR: No, no. Giving people a pre-warning I'm coming to a prison, means that they possibly could get one chance to hit me. And once they've have done that, I would then be put down the block. Now I wasn't gonna self-isolate. They probably know I'm not going to self-isolate. That gives them opportunity to get knifes, to get blades...

KH: To make to make weapons.

TR: To be prepared. And so I then put this in I put in a complaint saying, how is the prison imam telling people... I'm super paranoid...I know what was gone on previously in my previous prison sentences. I write a letter to my wife and it was a detailed letter. Yeah.

KH: You alright? It's alright. This is your...a letter to your wife from prison. What did you say?

TR: To make sure they understood why I do what I do... and it's me believing that the worst will come...

KH: That you will die in jail.

TR: The worst will come. And I want my children to know that...I haven't...Yeah (crying). At this point, I know what they're going to do. What I believe they're going to do. And I know no one can tell me why I was brought to that prison only. No one can tell me. So I know intentionally and previously I've been locked in rooms with Muslims in prison. So I believe, and then, in that first week in the block I've then been told I'm getting moved. And I said...I said to my wife: I'm getting moved for nothing (indecipherable) making comments to make sure I'm safe. I knew that nothing had been done to do that.

KH: So you sat down writing your letter to your wife and your children. What are you telling them?

TR: That I know, by doing what I do, that that moment will come. And I know that. And I chose that.

KH: And you want your children to know that you didn't choose it over them.

TR: So I detailed to my wife that it's not about them. It's not about our children. It's about every child. Everyone's. I'm not apologizing cause I'm not sorry for what I've done. I'm apologizing for what it's caused.

KH: Just tell us a little bit, because many of us won't have heard about the calling, the shouting, the banging the window.

TR: So from the first minute I was put in there, one prisoner in the cell next door spent six hours, all night...had to remind him he's in a prison so he can kick through them.

KH: Tell me about the food, Tommy.

TR: So all the servery, in each of the wings, is Muslim.

KH: ...is Muslim...

TR: They're in control of the main jobs.

KH: They're bringing you your food...

TR: My food is being taken to my to my cell.

KH: On a specific tray, that they know is coming to you. They know it's coming to you.

TR: With your name on it.

KH: So they know.

TR: Yeah, everyone knows.

KH: And then they say: Did you enjoy it?

TR: (indecipherable). Anything can get prison...smuggled into prison. Prisoners again, mobile phones this big in. To get something that big, whether it be a drug or a rat poison or anything...

KH: Glass.

TR: Anything they want to put into a dinner, it's gonna be easy. So I don't want to give that.

KH: Because you're if you're going to die, you're not going to go out with...

TR: No, I'm not like that.

KH: So tell me about the window in your block. I'm sorry. The window in your cell, pardon me.

TR: So then...yeah, it took, it took about a week before then...

KH: They spit through the window...

TR: Yeah, shit getting thrown through.

KH: When they're throwing...they're throwing human feces...their own.

TR: This is quite regular in prison. So people understand. Prisoners...

KH: Throw...human.

TR: Throw shit...throw human feces...

KH: So this is you and this is the physical and mental torture. Let me ask you one last question on this. You knew you were going to die. You'd already reconciled that this would happen and you'd written your letter to your wife and children explaining...

TR: And they didn't send the letter.

KH: They kept hold of that letter...

TR: They refused to send it.

KH: How did you imagine...because I've been somewhere near this in my own situations. How did you reconcile that you would be killed? Did you...did you think about how it would happen and that it would hurt and that you would accept that pain? How did you...where did you go with that?

TR: I believe I just believed that I was going to be moved prison again. That's what I was told. So in my first week when I was down the block, I was told that they'd be moving me again. So I even knew that they'd get one opportunity, where they they have an opportunity to get me, which has happened three times.

KH: So you knew there would be a moment...

TR: That they were going to get a moment to get me... All I wanted to tell my children is the reasons why, make sure they understood that I done this because I love you. That's why I've done that.

KH: Currently, as it stands, you are going back to face another judge. That's correct, isn't it?

TR: I'm about to face another trial. To this point, right now, here, I still have no idea what is that I've said outside court, that they're saying has breached a restriction. Because bearing in mind we know the law states they can't have reporting restrictions on information that's already in the public domain. Let's just, so people understand, reporting restrictions are regularly breached. OK? People get a small fine. Now, it's only the fact that I was talking about Muslim pedophile gangs. Those resulted in me being in prison for 13 months.

KH: Okay, so let's put you now...you're gonna be in front of the judge. Let's put you in there in the Old Bailey. Tell me what's going to happen?

TR: I'm going to be convicted. I'm gonna be found guilty and put back in prison.

KH: You're going to be found guilty.

TR: I know now, when I come up to this case, I'll be offered a deal.

KH: You'll be offered a plea deal.

KH: What, what deal do you think you'll be offered?

TR: If I plead guilty, that they will give me time served and I will go home.

KH: Will you plead guilty?

TR: What I said to my wife, which is...I need to know I have my wife's support, My family's support. As I said that I never, ever, ever, The last thing I would ever want to do, is bring down a court case that could...that would affect those young victims. That goes against everything I've ever stood for. So I could never accept that anything I said, because I know it didn't, prejudice that trial, because I know it did and we know it did and because the trial went ahead. So I said to my wife, if I was offered this, if I was, like, I can't. And then she just, she said, I'll still be here when you get home, sp...In the early years of my activism, my whole family were begging me to stop and trying to make me stop. I think that they're fully aware that now and that that's not gonna happen. And I think that the government, if this is intentionally done to break me or silence me or stop me, surely by now whoever's behind these little decisions should be realizing it hasn't and it won't. And quite now, my voice coming out of prison, whether it be if you send me back to prison, when I come back out, it will be a more accepted voice, more respected voice, more people will listen to me than they ever have. And people right now are sitting disgusted, astonished, shocked.

KH: For your wife to say, you know what, Tommy, I'll still be here when you come out. Will you stand there and say, not guilty? Is it is everything? Is it all of Tommy Robinson that willing to face it again, that brutality, the...the razor blades, the shit thumped through your window? Are you willing to do that again because you believe because of your pure authenticity that what you did was not wrong?

TR: It's not what it is. It's not just what I did was not wrong, it's what it represents. It represents far more than Tommy Robinson. What currently this has happened when I've been in prison is a movement that has created that is not solely about Tommy Robinson. It's a movement of feeling from people in this country who feel that they're not being represented. And that's not even about my story or me personally. This is people see. Hold on. If their attempts to silence me is to silence you. It's to silence the public. It's to silence...if they don't if they want...We've seen this has gone on across the world. The deep platform and the taking away of social media platforms and then the government and the oppression, the arrests and all of these things are happening. It's not just, (indecipherable). And I think it's come so far. And in fact, If I say...which I said to my wife, if I if I say I'm willing to die, do you run and do you hide? And the main thing that right now is really eating me up is that I like to fight. And if something is in front of me that I can battle, I'd stand there and fight it. But what they've managed to do and what they've done cleverly is to put...to cause me damage that is hard to fight. If, for example, in these cases they weren't reporting restrictions, the last five major Muslim grooming gang conviction cases have had these reported restrictions. If there wasn't, every single day we would hear it on media and online, and the public would read every day of the horrific, sadistic, sickening, disgusting, barbaric things that were happening to these children. We'd hear of the comments made to the children, the racial comments, the religious comments. We'd hear it day in, day out. Now by putting reporting restriction and saying that it's to maintain a fair trial, then what we get at the end of it, at the end of a yearlong trial of 30 men or 40 men...always...you get one day's news. And if you miss that one day's news, then it's gone. And I think that that's what these report restrictions are doing. If I stood outside court and nothing I said could could prejudice that trial, then why am I being imprisoned for it?

KH: But you're willing to die for what you believe in?

TR: If someone has to fight, let me fight, not my son. And where we're headed as a country, our next generation will look at us and they will never forgive us ...for letting this situation so.

Tommy Robinson, thank you very much indeed for your honesty, for sharing at a level that's quite extraordinary, and thank you very much.

TR: That's the first time I spoke about those things.

KH: I know. Thank you for everything you've done.

That was Katie Hopkins interviewing Tommy Robinson. Tommy is heading back to court on September 27th. The government is making him go through the whole thing all over again. And so he has to hire lawyers all over again. If you can help him cover the costs, which will surely be tens of thousands of pounds, please go to saveTommy.com. The government is trying to break him physically, psychologically and financially. Let's help him fight back, at least with that last part. Please chip in at Save Tommy.com.

TIME TO KICK ISLAM OUT OF BRITAIN

Katie Hopkins - Introducing wegather.online 3,821 views

245 likes

9 dislikes

Channel: Katie Hopkins Published on 26 Jan 2019 Retrieved on July 12, 2019

Duration: 2:19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC8hAYBMJzo

Katie Hopkins: First up, I'd like to offer a round of applause to my fellow truth speakers Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson for taking such a principled stand against politically biased censorship of speech by deleting their Patreon accounts that significant financial risk to themselves. Being as blunt and as outspoken as I am, I've long been concerned about how some major Silicon Valley companies are silencing those they don't agree with by having vague terms of service and selectively targeting and closing the accounts of people just like me. Clearly, services which have virtually no rules are not the answer either, as they become dominated by loud, extreme voices shouting madly at the sky. We're all waiting in anticipation to see what Rubin and Peterson will launch as we need more platforms where people of reason can speak without fear of censorship and also where they can engage in rational debate. I say more because I know of a service that does this already, but it's not being talked about enough. So I wanted to chat to you about it. It's called We Gather and I think it has many of the big things right. It's a place to post content as well as have content funded by followers and fans. I needed to make sure this was a place where I could really speak freely without needing to behave or bite my tongue. So I met with the founders and asked how they balance the need for free speech with the need to avoid the problems that platforms with no rules experience. We gather has clear terms of service. Only speech that can be shown as having been intended to be racist as well as being likely to result in actual discrimination would not be allowed. I encourage you all to take a look at we gather dot online where real political discussion is not stifled and we can have conversations that matter. You can find me there by searching my name: Katie Hopkins. We need to stand together at this time and welcome all the platforms that support brave voices and not tolerate those that won't.

Legal aid madness in the U.K. 2,186 views

224 likes

8 dislikes

Katie Hopkins Published on 17 Apr 2019

Retrieved on July 12, 2019

Duration: 2:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU1mlcUPr4w

Katie Hopkins: I thought we'd play a game called What Do These People Have in common? If for no other reason than to escape the tedium of people talking about Brexit or avoiding the question on not to time like who started that fire? First up, Michael Adebolajo. What do you think he has got in common with, for example, Anjem Choudary, other than Anjem inspired Michael Adebolajo to hack to death one of our military personnel in the street. Anjem Choudary, a hate speaker. What do you think he's got in common, for example, with Shabbir Ahmed? He is the leader of the majority Pakistani Muslim grooming gang who targeted our daughters, some as young as 13. You'll notice I've printed these pictures in black and white, so I can't be accused of being a racist or a Nazi. Well, not today, anyway. Shamima Begum, what do you think she's got in common with those gentlemen? Well, guess what? It turns out that in every case, these enemies of the people, these people who have hurt, maimed, wounded, killed those British people that they've attacked. We've paid for all of them to defend themselves. We're paying for her to appeal. We paid him 250000 pounds to try and clear his name after he was the leader of a grooming gang rape squad. This guy, 140000 pounds of British taxpayers cash. This guy who hacked to death, one of our military personnel, 200 K. This is the state of Britain today. This is the madness of this lunatic asylum in which I am forced to live. Our British taxpayers are always paying for the criminals and never to defend victims? And now Soldier F is going to be prosecuted for trying to defend his country during the troubles in Northern Ireland. I ask you, how much longer has this country really got?

Katie Hopkins in Israel - with Yaakov Ahimeir on Roim Olam 2,881 views

79 likes

8 dislikes

Channel: Katie Hopkins Published on 16 Jul 2018

Retrieved on July 12, 2019

Duration: 9:16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lesEZolRnA

Katie Hopkins: I like to think I don't have an agenda, but I do have my own politics, of course, and my politics: so, strong borders, stop migration, defend your land, defend Judeo Christian culture. So that's really my bias.

Yakov Ahimeir: So you are an extreme right thinker or commentator.

Katie Hopkins: No. No. And that's what the mainstream media, of course, would say. The mainstream media would say far right. Extreme right. Over there on the extreme, as they call you a racist or an Islamophobe or a bigot or a zealot or a misogynist. Every label that you could possibly have. But, you know, I know I'm none of those things. I know I'm not I don't even understand what far right is.

YA: Are you in a minority.

KH: I don't think I'm in the minority. I believe there are 20, well, I more or less know there are 20 million people in the UK who also are frustrated that they don't have a voice.

YA: What do you think, for instance, about the British media the BBC, the other news organizations?

KH: The British media is crazy.

YA: Crazy?

KH: Utterly crazy. The BBC is utterly crazy. They are a proper propaganda vehicle for the state. No better, no worse. They are, at least in North Korea. mm hmm, you got your propaganda for free. Where I come from, you have to pay for your propaganda on the BBC. They can't stand Israel, for example. And it's very clear they can't stand Israel. And if a Palestinian stabs an Israeli we'll hear Palestinian shot dead in West Bank. We won't hear the first bit where the Palestinian stabbed an Israeli. They'll remove that bit because it's an inconvenient truth. Our BBC state broadcaster is a propaganda tool for the state. No question. And I have to pay for it, as do 20 million other people, possibly a little bit like me who know that it's an utter bunch of nonsense coming from the left.

YA: But Miss Hopkins, I know that you're a television personality. You appear, you are invited to television and radio studios. Why do you, what is the complaint?

KH: I have no complaints. I have no complaint. I just recognize that the ability for someone like me to appear on certain shows is now very limited because we aren't. people aren't keen on having people with opinions like mine to be given airtime. You know, our media does suffer from incredible bias. The reporting on Israel, you would it would horrify Israelis if they could hear the things that are said. On Al-Quds Day, you know, just a few weeks ago, our Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan...

YA: The mayor of London?

KH: The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, he's very short. He allowed Hezbollah flags to be paraded down the center of London. That's the country I live in. We have a Muslim Police Association in my country. White, Christian, Judeo Christian culture is being erased from Britain. And so people like me are no longer wanted in the press.

YA: Do you hear a racist remark from you?

KH: In what way?

YA: In what way? The way you're talking about the Muslims in London. I believe that they are equal citizens.

KH: I believe Muslims in London can be equal citizens. But what we're finding very different difficult in London and in the rest of the UK actually is to differentiate those who are our friends and those who seek to hurt us.

YA: What do you advise the so-called London authorities?

KH: One, we need to get rid of Sadiq Khan. It is not possible for a Muslim mayor to run our city legitimately. You may have heard him speak out against Trump, for example. He says we don't want Trump here. We don't want Trump's visit. That is not correct. There are many lovely people in the rest of the UK, a place I come from called the rest of the UK. We want Trump to come. We are massive Trump supporters. There's lots of supporters of Israel in the UK, but we don't have a voice. The mayor of London does not speak for the UK. And the second thing we need to do in the UK is when we have a terrorist attack is do what Benjamin Netanyahu does or Israel does, get the terrorist and kick him out, take the family of the terrorists and kick him out. Find the imam at the mosque who's preaching extremist hate and kick him out, too. And do we do that? No.

YA: They are human beings, like you and me. With a different religion.

KH: No, sorry. We disagree. Returning jihadis to me. They're not human beings. They're feral humans. I do not want them near my daughters. I'm sorry, I don't agree with you at all.

YA: People would say that your remarks are racist.

KH: I don't mind if you want to call me racist. That's fine. It makes no difference to me because it's your label. It's what you think. That's fine. If you think that, that's fine. I know I'm not. I know that I'm an honest truth speaker for my children. I know that I'm a good mom for my children. I know that I love my country. I joined the military to fight for my country. I went through Sandhurst and joined the intelligence corps. So I know what I'm fighting for. And it doesn't matter if you call me fat or ugly or thin or Nazi or racist or Islamophobic or anti Semite, I'm all those things sometimes to people. I know none of those things.

YA: News organizations in England paid damages because of your remarks.

KH: I don't regret anything I've said. I don't regret anything that I've done. And I don't even regret being fired because sometimes if my opinions don't suit you anymore and you don't need me in your organizations because advertisers will leave you and we need to protect advertisers commercially, I understand that, but it's not going to stop me.

YA: I believe that this is your first visit to Israel.

KH: Yes, I know. It's very annoying. So I'm sure I'm supposed to be Jewish and I'm not. I just got the nose. All my friends in the UK are Jewish, but I feel like I've been here forever. But I it's my first time here and we've brought 60, 65 supporters of rebel media, my supporters, supporters of Israel, actually. We just get told all the bad stuff. Israel's a monster. The IDF is a monster. Bibi's a monster. And then you see these people. We went to a ceremony where the Air Force get their wings. The new recruits get their wings. And everyone came away in tears because it was so...your country has got such pride in its military and pride in families. You do families brilliantly. You have so much respect for the family and the mother. We don't have that.

YA: So the image of Israel in the eyes of many news organizations in the world is distorted?

KG: In, in...from the mainstream, if I give my personal oppinion on my media, the IDF are the aggressors. The IDF are the terrorists, the IDF. Here's the images of the IDF shooting at women and children, not reminding people that those women and children are being used as a front for Hamas as they operate from the Gaza Strip throwing their bombs. What we don't get is the other side, which is all I'm trying to say is there is another side. I don't mind that you want to see that side. But what I would quite like sometimes is for someone to show the other side. And so that's a little bit about, I guess, what I try and do.

YA: What would you advise the Israeli officials in order to correct or to correct the image of Israel?

KH: Yes. Sort it out. I'd like to get hold of...I don't know who's responsible for your media, your communications, your...who is responsible for government communications. Is it you?

YA: The government is responsible for the whole state.

KH: The government. Okay, fine. Who is the person in the government that heads up communications?

YA: The prime minister.

KH: Okay. Who is their person? No, he can't do everything. Whoever it is, I'd like to get them and sit them here and tell them what they need to do. Because they're not doing a good job. They're not doing a good job. They are allowing the other side, the Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian refugees. They're allowing them to win the media war. They need to step up their game significantly. Start working out how you link good journalists, not not me, someone neutral, with people who tell another side of the story. Start enabling the world to listen because the other side are winning.

YA: I thank you very much, miss Katie Hopkins.

KH: Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Katie Hopkins | We Should NOT Support No Platforming (6/8) | Oxford Union 233,614 views

7.6K likes

389 dislikes

Channel: Oxford Union

Published on 10 Jul 2019

Retrieved July 23, 2019

Duration 18:06 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkSBfdXNWWk

Moderator: I now look at Katie Hopkins to continue the case for the opposition tonight.

Katie Hopkins: Just a warning, if you start dingging anything at me, I will ding you back. I'm almost beginning to wish Naz Shah had bothered turning up. Cause that, frankly, was poor. I don't know if you've proved anything at all. I think you've probably proved the reason you're not heard is your just simply not that interesting. Earlier you guys were talking about the fact that this side of the room was mostly right wing and this side of the room was mostly left. Well, I think that's not entirely true. I think this side of the room is right and you guys are just wrong. I think the only thing probably you proved in your talk, in the duration of your talk, was that you can count to five. I'm glad there's only three chapters of your book because it'll be a bloody boring novel. Thank you very much to everybody for being here this evening. I appreciate you being here and I very much appreciate you staying in the room as well. I find people that walk out of debates rather tedious. Not only do I have to wait for them to leave, but then when they get outside, they always wonder rather what they're doing out there because now they can't hear what's going on. I was asked recently to speak at Exeter University and I agreed. When I got there, inside the building, I was asked to fill a form, a legal declaration that I would not cause offence to anybody in the room. I was told if I did not sign this form, I would be physically removed from Exeter University debating chamber by the security. Now the security looked like a vegan, so I didn't much...

Public: [Laughter]

KH: ...I didn't much fancy his chances anyway, at the best of times. Hands up in this room, who's a vegan? I mean, God help this debating society, if vegans ever get in power. There will be a truly... A truly terrible moment. Short people and vegans: and two things I simply can't stand. They must never run this Oxford Union.

Audience member: (indecipherable)

KH: Who said that? Well, for goodness sake, make yourself known. Don't just sit there grinning.

Audience member: I just wanted to point out that the librarian is a vegan...She's running for president this term.

KH: The librarian is a what?

Audience member: A vegan.

KH: Is it possible? Could it be true? Will he be any use to anyone? She? No. No. There can never be a vegan who could be a president of this great Oxford Union. Anywho, I was asked to sign...we are getting rather distracted, but I was asked to sign a form to say that I would not offend anybody during that speech. But in order to speak, I would have to sign the form. So I asked the room, the chamber, as I would do here: Shall I sign? They said yes. I signed the form, made it into a paper airplane, threw it at the security. And then I asked anybody in the room that was going to be offended to please leave the room. If you felt, that I have the potential to offend you, anything you stand for, the principles you live by, then please leave the room. And only one individual left the room, which I completely applauded. And that individual was then replaced by the crowd outside who couldn't get in and was replaced by a far better looking individual than was previously in the room. My point rather being, I don't think it's fair to invite someone to debate and then say they cannot offend the audience. I would think the point that you're here is to be offended. I am offended by your shirt, but you carry on.

Audience member: I believe once - you once called for a group of people to have a final solution. How does one speak if a final solution has been brought upon them. And isn't that a complete hypocrisy, which you being here in many way embodies when you say that.

KH: So after the Manchester Arena, thank you very much indeed for your point of information, after the Manchester Arena terror attacks. The morning after those attacks, I said we need a final solution to terror. I stand by that tweet. I don't have a problem with it. I say never apologize, never explain, because apologies and explanations never appease this lot. An apology only encourages the bastards, quite frankly. That tweet, people didn't like it because they applied their own interpretation to it. I want a solution that is consistent ending above all else to terror in the UK. And I can tell you something. Making heart shaped gestures at the sky is not going to do it. Lighting more candles is not going to do it. Turning off the lights of the Eiffel Tower once again is not going to do it. I am epileptic. If they turn those lights on and off more times, I am in danger of having a fit. This is not the solution we need. You may have seen today Danny Baker has got himself, you can laugh, even if you hate me, it's possible. Both of those things, consistently, together, are possible. Danny Baker today was fired for a tweet. He lost his radio show. Now, you may say, it was a terrible tweet, a racist tweet. How dare he? What an awful thing to do. I genuinely don't believe a guy with a radio show on BBC would send that tweet, meaning what people have inferred it to mean. You just could not be that stupid. In the same way that I was fired from my radio show for my tweets. It is not possible that you would send a tweet like that in the hope of causing that level of offense. I believe, one moment, sir, I'm answering your point of information before you have a second point of information. I genuinely believe people apply offense. You guys apply offense because you choose to. I don't give offense. You choose to take it. And you need to make better choices, in my opinion. You call yourself educated people. I'm just not sure of that sometimes. You know, yesterday I was surprised to receive an e-mail from The Guardian. Terrible paper. Again, employs short people that wear sweaters (indecipherable). I mean, who does that? The Guardian saying, could they have a comment, please? Because Naz Shah MP was not going to turn up because I'm here speaking. Naz Shah was not going to turn up to support the proposition that there should be no platforming, because she didn't want to give me a platform. Has anyone else got that worked out? Has anyone got that kind of the sort of lizard starting to eat its own tail? She didn't turn up to support these guys because she thought I shouldn't be given a platform to argue back against her. It is an absolute madness. We have entered a territory, a realm that is impossible to conceive. It's a bit like listening to your argument, sir. Well, we can't not, not, not proper, have the proposition that's the opposition, because we can't not no platform anyone. I didn't really get any of that. But I think the fact that we don't have not Naz here is a pity, but she didn't just walk away, did she? She didn't just say she wouldn't come to the debate. What she did first was to ring these guys to say that she was thinking of not coming to the debate, hoping in turn that I would be no-platformed. And that's precisely how these individuals operate. They like to try and have other people removed from the debate in order that they can be here. But I would like to thank the union for being true to its founding principles. This union, with no political views of its own. A space specifically for people with controversial views, for firebrands.

Audience member: (indecipherable)

KH: Darling, you are you not hot? Do...continue.

Audience member: If you wouldn't mind explaining to the public, why exactly platforming dangerous religious extremist speakers to radicalisation of folks in the UK is a problem, which is plausibly true. But wouldn’t you therefore agree that from that very line of logic, the right to free speech or to speech is not absolute when it undermines security, and undermines society and therefore you kind of contradicted your very own point although I do very much think that you are a great speaker.

KH: Thank you very much for the compliment. I'm going with that. I think we do best actually as a country when we have people and we are able to disarm them. And sometimes that's with humor and sometimes that's with debate. You know, I think about jihadis. I've been the target of a jihadi plot to behead me. I was, a lady wanted my head as a wedding gift from her jihadi husband. This is not a made-up story. There are actual, it was actually reported in The Guardian. Who knew? And as a wedding gift, she wanted my head. She brought him a plastic dummy. They practiced with a hunting knife. A security team turned up at my house and installed panic alarms. The lady who wanted my head, she was called (unintelligible). I think. I'm not sure, darling. And she wanted my head because she thought it would be a good way of silencing me as the biggest bitch in Britain. But you know, the thing about jihadis is, of course, we have returning jihadis coming back to this country, don't we? 342 of them, certain governments let back in. Returning jihadis, which is a misnomer in itself, isn't it? Jihadis are supposed to go and blow themselves up to get 72 virgins, which is more than you find in the whole of Oxford. And instead, instead they come home, they're returning. So if you're a returning jihadi you're just a bit shit at your job, aren't you? If you're a bit shit at your job, you probably feel like someday just ending it or killing yourself, but then you realize you're shit at doing that too. My point being, even though, as a threat, as a target of the jihadis myself, I think the best way of disarming them is through that kind of humor, by mocking the people.

Audience member: (indecipherable)

KH: No, you've had one already, darling. It's time for someone else to speak.

Audience member: (indecipherable)

KH: Oh, brilliant. Well done, darling and I love your shirt. You're the best dressed woman in the room, by far.

Audience member: Ok, thank you. But I would like you to maybe answer today's motion. Because I don't think you have. You have insulted many people in this room and you actually haven't told why this house shouldn't support no-platforms?

KH: This union, thank you very much for that. It was well delivered and I still think your splendidly dressed. So thank you. The union was built for a time just like this, except two hundred years ago. It was built at a time when university authorities didn't think it was a good idea for the little people to have ideas of their own. Because uncontrolled speech might lead to bad things, people might question stuff. The narrative might be challenged. Hidden truths might be revealed. In 1823, your predecessors began this noble crusade. And now it is for you to continue their charge. And the fight is a noble one. Speech is not controversial in and of itself, just as a meal is neither delicious nor rancid. It is determined by the diner. And it seems to me that the listener, just like Celeste, is weaker than ever before. Ears are as delicate now as rice paper and the Overton Window has closed almost to a cat flap. You know, there was a time when I was just an over opinionated woman in a white suit with patients’ issues, and now I'm virtually Mussolini. And I, don't mind that, that's not problematic for me. I am comfortable with who I am. But it does rather beg the question, where does this all end up? I ask you, where does no platforming end? Will this house start to censor the individual words? Will you start to hand out forms requiring that people don't damage those who are weaker or less right? When the agreement is the precursor to debate, what will be the point of the opposition at all? Will you even have motions anymore, I ask you? Or will you all just come here to nod, like dogs? Again, I'm reminded of Naz Shah. And who will be the arbiter of what is controversial? Where is the metric? Tell me. Who knows how to measure what is controversial? Celeste suggests we know the difference between right and wrong. Who decides that stuff? Who's going to be the one who makes the decision who can come here? How are their opinions right or wrong or justified? There is no known metric. There is no controversy meter. Just some crap clapometer dependent on the outrage of the mob. Sometimes the mob fails. I present to the boycott of the Oxford Union; whose campaign policy was to get associated vegans and unemployables to boycott this space. This is known as a win win. Or the absence of Naz Shah. One fewer anti Semite in the room is never a bad thing. But sometimes the outraged mob has power and wins. The recent expelling of Sir Roger Scruton is a good example, pushed out by engineered misquotes and misinformation deliberately set by the weaker side. As employers fire workers for expressing personal opinions online and police knock doors in New Zealand for wrong think on the Christchurch shootings, or I'm forced to sign a document saying what I am allowed to say, what I'm not allowed to say, who I'm not allowed to offend in any room. Are we really going to call that progress? Is this really taking us forward? What are we so frightened of? You know, for all your curiosities, I trust you guys. I trust you to know what you think, to form your own opinion. And I respect that you will either love me, hate me, loathe me, think I'm intellectually deficient, agree with me, whatever, when you choose to leave this debating chamber. But I afford you the courtesy of respecting your intellectual capability to decide that. And I do not need someone in a position of authority to decide for you what you will be allowed to hear. I think that's what you need to be standing up for as young people in this union. You need to be standing up for the right to listen to people who you then go on to decide you do not agree with. Once someone starts to mandate what you can't hear, how narrow, how small is this window going to get? How tiny your space, your world view? Just how small do you want it to be? I fear for the day that someone gets into this union and starts to no-platform speakers because there will never be a return from that. You are on the precipice. You are on the cusp of something monumental here. When you walk through that door, you can't un-walk that decision. You can't take back the wrong decision. And to vote with the proposition tonight will be the wrong decision. We are 1823. Outside, the ordinary man's voices, as (name) will tell you. Seventeen point four million of us watching our vote overturned. The ordinary man's voice is reduced to a whisper. In a time of industrial levels of censorship and outrage, this small house needs to roar like a lion. And roar we will. Please vote with us tonight. Thank you very much.