One has to ask: do the same laws apply to everyone in Britain?

It has become fashionable to frame these ideas as being effectively generated online. If violent Islamist ideas can be blamed on mostly foreign tech companies and algorithms, then politicians and law enforcement escape the far more difficult problem of countering and policing the extremists Islamists promote here at home. Mosques, and mosque sermons, are a particularly influential way for extreme preachers to force their ideas on captive Muslim audiences. By promoting hatred of wider non-Muslim societies, and minority groups, extremists create the atmosphere in which calls to violence can become emotionally compelling and religiously justified if not required.

Where extremists use mosque sermons as a way to radicalise their congregations, thus creating the conditions for terrorism and promoting hatred against those they demonise as enemies, the law must be applied. This is the one mechanism that can shut down these radicalising narratives.

The refusal of the British state to enforce its own laws, and to take action against those who openly promote an ideology that seeks to destroy democratic norms, encourages further extremism and radicalisation into terrorism.

This is a familiar pattern. In 2018, police investigated an imam at the mosque attended by Salman Abedi, the Manchester Arena bomber. Worshippers from that mosque had gone to fight with Islamist militants in Libya, and to join Islamic State in Syria. In a recorded sermon, an imam at that mosque called for victory for the Mujahideen in Syria, and criticised Muslims who had not gone there, demanding that now was the time to act and praising jihad.

With sermons such as that, perhaps it is only to be expected that some who attended the mosque went to join jihadists. Nevertheless, authorities claimed that no offences were committed and no charges were brought against the Imam.

Then there is the Imam of Lewisham Islamic Centre, Shakeel Begg, who during a libel case in 2016 was labelled by a High Court judge as “promoting and encouraging violent jihad”. Yet Begg continues to preach sermons to congregations. Then there is the Kanoon Towhid Islamic centre where speeches by IRGC leaders glorifying violence were streamed to students. Most would assume that those who ran these events would be subject to prosecution.

Refusing to use the powers at its disposal to combat those who espouse extremism creates the environment for terrorism to emerge. It sends a message to extremists that they can continue to marshal against our democracy, and to the public it sends the message that the law is not applied to extremists.

Authorities should use the same mechanisms against those who promote hatred and violence during religious sermons as they would against fascists at a right-wing rally. Preachers who encourage support for terrorism, and hatred of different religions and minorities should be prosecuted.

As is the case with the mosque attended by Salman Abedi, the mosque with the preacher calling for destroying Jewish homes is a registered charity. Institutions that espouse hatred and legitimise violence should not be charities.

Politicians and government officials could undoubtedly promise new laws to counter terrorism and extremism. A better approach would be to robustly apply the laws that already exist. Glorifying terrorism and inciting hatred are already criminal offences. Doing so is just as illegal no matter who it is or what the context is.

​

Tom Wilson is Director of Policy at the Counter Extremism Group