The Government’s implied consent of Kiwi men vowing to take up arms against Russia is problematic for its Countering Violent Extremism programme, revealing politically biased underpinnings of what we consider violent extremism, argues Professor Richard Jackson
Comment: A recent segment on TVNZ’s Sunday programme interviewed several New Zealand men who plan to travel to the Ukraine to fight against the Russian invasion. On Facebook and Instagram people have been calling for violence against Russians for several weeks now.
According to many international definitions and the opinion of experts, these should both be considered examples of what we call violent extremism. They are civilians advocating for, and preparing to use, violence in pursuit of a political cause against a certain group of people.
The reality however is that neither the police nor the media or public at large considers these men to be violent extremists or is concerned they will return to New Zealand and pose a threat. Instead, their motives are considered perfectly understandable and in accord with the New Zealand Government’s own stated intention to send military aid to Ukraine.
For their part, Facebook and Instagram have recently made changes to their hate speech policies, allowing for calls for violence against Russians and their allies.
If these men were openly preparing to travel to Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Myanmar or any other conflict zone to fight for their relatives and friends under attack, there is little doubt they would be condemned as violent extremists and likely face severe sanctions under terrorism or foreign fighter legislation.
This is a serious problem for the Government’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programme, because it reveals the politically biased, and some might argue, racist underpinnings of how violent extremism is meant to be understood and countered.
If, for example, these men were openly preparing to travel to Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Myanmar or any other conflict zone to fight for their relatives and friends under attack, there is little doubt they would be condemned as violent extremists and likely face severe sanctions under terrorism or foreign fighter legislation.
Similarly, those who publicly advocate for violent resistance to Israel’s occupation of Palestine or to Syrian chemical attacks on civilians are shut down as violent extremists.
This is despite the fact that in all these other conflicts we can see the same kind of war crimes taking place as have occurred in Ukraine, and often there has been a similar level of international condemnation for the actions of the conflicting parties.
If we look historically, the New Zealand government, and many Western governments, supported armed struggles in places like South Africa, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan. More recently, Western governments have tolerated individuals travelling to fight with the Kurds against Isis in Syria and Iraq.
Your white neighbour who is packing his bags to go and kill Russians in Ukraine will be ignored or even patted on the back. No one will call him a violent extremist, even if he fits the current definition of one.
In other words, a key problem here is that the Government’s current approach to CVE looks racist. If you’re taking up arms in defence of a white European people or against one of the Western’s sworn enemies in the Middle East, you’re not considered a violent extremist; if you try the same thing in another conflict where the West has different interests, you are by definition an extremist.
At the very least, it’s an embarrassing double standard. This perception problem will get even more complicated if and when white supremacist groups decide to go and fight in Ukraine or indeed, if some individuals go to fight on the Russian side.
However, this is just the most obvious challenge posed by the present crisis. The deeper issue is that judging what counts as extremist violence as opposed to a legitimate use of force, and what counts as an extremist cause as opposed to a moderate or legitimate cause, is a value judgment made from a particular vantage point determined by history, values and the dominant culture.
At one time, the suffragettes who planted bombs, went on hunger strike and engaged in acts of disruptive civil disobedience in their quest to fundamentally change the patriarchal nature of society were considered extremists. Tino rangatiratanga activists, both historic and contemporary, who are struggling to radically overturn the remaining structures of the settler colonial state arguably fit the same bill, as do many climate change activists.
The Government is currently working to develop a new more comprehensive CVE strategy. For many New Zealand Muslims who support the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, or who support groups fighting against tyranny and violent oppression in a number of Middle Eastern states, the outcome of the Government’s discussions on violent extremism will be anxiously awaited.
The Government’s response to the foreign fighters going to Ukraine will also be under scrutiny. How will the Government decide which conflicts and wars it is legitimate for New Zealand citizens to go and fight in, and what will happen to those communities who support the wrong cause?
This is where the wider community comes in. The Government is looking at trying to bring in a so-called see something, say something culture in line with the Christchurch Commission recommendations. Specifically, the SIS is planning to release a public version of the agency’s own indicators of violent extremism in the next few months to help people to identify signs that an individual could be mobilising to violence.
Ordinary people will then be obliged to report signs of violent extremism to the authorities. The problem is, as the Human Rights Commission will confirm, people can have implicit bias, hold racist views, be subject to cultural misunderstanding and stereotyping, and fall victim to misinformation and disinformation.
The biggest danger, and the most likely result if the experiences of other countries is anything to go by, is that people of colour, as well as some political activists, will be disproportionately reported as possible violent extremists.
Meanwhile, as least as of today, your white neighbour who is packing his bags to go and kill Russians in Ukraine will be ignored or even patted on the back. No one will call him a violent extremist, even if he fits the current definition of one.
