Description
Tackling Hate is a collaborative initiative aiming to build capacities to tackle hate and extremism. In this website, you will find free training modules, video interviews with international experts, and blog posts sharing international cutting edge research evidence and best practice about how to tackle hate and extremism. What is hate? What is violent extremism? What is terrorism? How do we define violent extremism? What is extremism? What is terrorism? Terrorism research evidence is key. How do we prevent violent extremism. How do we prevent terrorism. How do we prevent violent extremism and terrorism. How do we prevent violent extremism, terrorism and hate crime. How do we prevent hate crime. The prevention of hate crime is very important. The prevention of violent extremism is key. The prevention of hate speech is so key. Hate is an ambiguous and politically charged term. Usually, it refers to crime, speech or other conduct motivated by prejudice or bias. It can range from intimidation to property damage, from offensive speech to violent assaults and murder. Since the 1980s, there has been considerable debate about the utility of the concept of “hate crime”, and the best terminology to define it (whether “hate crime”, “bias crime”, “targeted crime”, “prejudice-motivated crime”, etc.).While we agree with many of the critiques to the concept of “hate” (ambiguous, ideological, is hating a crime?), we also keep in mind the very practical aim of this group in enhancing real work of civil society and agencies. Victims who look for support type on Google words like “hate crime”, and for this reason we cannot dismiss this terminology completely, even if we agree that it is not completely accurate and precise.It is important to noticed that “hate” is often absent from definitions of hate crime, which use more concepts like “bias” and “prejudice”. Please see here some definitions adopted internationally by key institutions and civil society organisations working on tackling hate.Fischer et al (2018) published an article titled “Why we hate” where they review theories and evidence about why people hate. They define hate as a stable negative disposition towards an object. If anger can be a momentary feeling, hate is sustained, and it is motivated by “what people are” rather than “what they do”. Hate can be a precursor of individual and group violence, and it can fuel conflict and feed further hate. Hate can also be reassuring and self-protective because it has a simple message that confirms people’s beliefs and prejudices.Their review of evidence suggest that hate is associated with a perception that the target has a malicious intent, coupled with feelings of lack of control and powerlessness. This desperation is what fuels hate. Hate is a stable sentiment that is often associated with the willingness to obliterate and destroy the enemy. When hate is manifested at an inter-group level, the haters do not need to know the people they hate, but only what they represent. In this sense, hate can be a precursor of both hate crime and violent extremism.Why is it important for stakeholders to agree on a common definition? • To improve collective discussion. It is important to improve clarity of discussion between civil society organisations, academics, human rights commission Police and other stakeholders who might want to start a collaboration. It’s also important to improve clarity of communications between these organisations, the media, communities and the public. • To underpin data collection efforts. Differences in definitions among organisations that collect data about hate crime and hate incidents can distort the understanding of the phenomenon. It can distort the understanding of the magnitude of the phenomenon, and distort trends and comparisons between hate against different communities. If you want to read more about this topic, please find here a report from the ICCT about Extreme-Right Violence in Europe: https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Extreme-Right-Violence-and-Terrorism-Concepts-Patterns-and-Responses.pdf This report discusses how sometimes national statistics count hate crime under different labels, such as extremist violence and terrorism, depending on the definitions. Therefore, trends of hate are usually not comparable across time and between states (even within the same countries) because the same types of events are counted under different labels, or different types of events under the same label.Definitions“Hate crime” usually refers to criminal offences (any criminal offence) motivated by bias.Please see an introductory video from Facing Facts about this: https://youtu.be/mVmqjbsCZU4 It is important to notice that: • Hate crimes are also “message” crimes, used to convey fear, hostility and suspicion on victims and connected communities and groups. Emotional and psychological consequences like sustained fear among not only victims but others who perceive to share the same identity • The individual victim often is not significant to the perpetrator except as a member of the targeted group (in most cases … with notable exceptions of communities like people living with disabilities or elders).Another related concept that is worth considering is “hateful extremism”. Hateful extremism is defined by the UK Commission for Countering Extremism as it follows:Behaviours that can incite and amplify hate, or engage in persistent hatred, orequivocate about and make the moral case for violence; And that draw on hateful, hostile or supremacist beliefs directed at an out‑group who are perceived as a threat to the wellbeing, survival or success of an in‑group;And that cause, or are likely to cause, harm to individuals, communities or wider society.To know more about hateful extremism and its use in the UK, please read: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/836538/Challenging_Hateful_Extremism_report.pdfIn this video, Prof Greg Barton discusses the concept of “hateful extremism”: VIDEO GREGPlease see here some definitions adopted internationally by key institutions and civil society organisations working on tackling hate.Organisation Concept DefinitionADL Hate crime A hate crime is a criminal act against a person or property in which the perpetrator chooses the victim because of the victim's real or perceived race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or gender. Some state-level statutory definitions in the United States may include additional (or fewer) categories. Hate crime and hate speech are not synonymous and most hate speech is not hate crime.CST Antisemitic incident CST classifies as an antisemitic incident any malicious act aimed at Jewish people, organisations or property, where there is evidence that the incident has antisemitic motivation or content, or that the victim was targeted because they are (or are believed to be) Jewish. Incidents can take several forms, including physical attacks on people or property, verbal or written abuse, threats against Jews or antisemitic leaflets and posters. CST does not include the general activities of anti-Semitic organisations in its statistics; nor does itinclude antisemitic material that is permanently hosted on internet websites.True Vision - The National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Crown Prosecution Service Hate crime Hate crime is defined as “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.” Metropolitan Police UK Hate incident A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender. Tell MAMA Anti-Muslim or Islamophobic incident Tell MAMA classifies an anti-Muslim of Islamophobic incident as any malicious act aimed at Muslim groups or individuals, private properties, or Islamic organisations, where the act has biased motivation or content, or that the victim was targeted due to their being (or perceived as) Muslim.FBI Hate crime A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.NYPD Hate crime In accordance with the New York State Penal Law, the New York City Police Department uses the followingguideline: “A bias incident is any offense or unlawful act that is motivated in whole or substantial part by a person’s, a group’s or a place’s identification with a particular race, color, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, ancestry, national origin or sexual orientation (including gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender) as determined by the Commanding Officer of the Hate Crime Task Force.”OSCE Hate crime Hate crimes are criminal acts motivated by bias or prejudice towards particular groups of people. To be considered a hate crime, the offence must meet two criteria: First, the act must constitute an offence under criminal law; second, the act must have been motivated by bias. Bias motivations can be broadly defined as preconceived negative opinions, stereotypical assumptions, intolerance or hatred directed to a particular group that shares a common characteristic, such as race, ethnicity, language, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender or any other fundamental characteristic. People with disabilities may also be victims of hate crimes. Hate crimes can include threats, property damage, assault, murder or any other criminal offence committed with a bias motivation. Hate crimes don't only affect individuals from specific groups. People or property merely associated with – or even perceived to be a member of – a group that shares a protected characteristic, such as human rights defenders, community centres or places of worship, can also be targets of hate crimes.Victoria Police Prejudice Motivated Crime A criminal act which is motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred for or prejudice against a group of people with common characteristics with which the victim was associated or with which the offender believed the victim was associated. Characteristics include: religious affiliation, racial or cultural origin, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, age, impairment (within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995), or homelessness. NSW Police Force Bias crime A criminal offence motivated against persons, associates of persons, property or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by an offender’s bias against an individual’s or group’s actual or perceived; race, religion, ethnic/national origin, sex/gender, gender identity, age, disability status, sexual orientation or homeless status.Some definitions are narrow because they focus only on crimes as captured by the national legislation. However, we know that many harmful acts such as different forms of discrimination and verbal abuse are often not captured by criminal codes. This is the reason why many civil society organisations decided to focus on “hate incidents” instead of “hate crime”: to capture conduct that does not constitute a crime, but it’s nonetheless harmful to victims.Some other definitions are narrow, because they only focus on one community: for example they only focus on “anti-semitism” or “Islamophobia”. In this project, we are looking at wider definitions that include many identities that can be victim of hate.Protected characteristicsMany different groups can be victim of hate and prejudice. This video provides interviews with a number of communities that are victims of hate: https://vimeo.com/281082112Scholars and practitioners are divided on whether the legitimate victims of hate crime are only those minority groups who are object of historical and structural disadvantage or whether a member of any community is deserving the same legal protection (Garland and Chakrabroti 2012) and what populations should be included as a “vulnerable population” or “protected group” (Stanko 2001).For this reason, many definitions of hate crime list a number of “protected characteristics”, which identify the identities that can be victim of hate. Examples of these lists are:• perceived race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or gender (ADL)• race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender (True Vision UK)• race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity (FBI)• race, ethnicity, language, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender or any other fundamental characteristic (OSCE)• religious affiliation, racial or cultural origin, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, age, impairment (within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995), or homelessness (Victoria Police)• race, religion, ethnic/national origin, sex/gender, gender identity, age, disability status, sexual orientation or homeless status (NSW Police)Often people think about hate crime as a category to protect only “minorities”. However, as this video points out, white people in white majority states like the UK can perceive to be victims of hate: PAUL VIDEOShould gender (and gender bias) be included and constitute a form of hate crime?• Some warn against considering violence against women as a form of hate crime, questioning whether such interpersonal violence is an abuse of an individual because of their membership of a particular group or population (Stanko 2001)Who decides what is hate? Perceptions and bias indicatorsThere is a general consensus that the distinctive feature of hate crime and hate incident is the bias motivation. Was the conduct motivated in part or in whole by prejudice or bias? If the answer is yes, we can safely say that it was a hate crime (if criminalized by criminal code) or a hate incident (if it does not meet the threshold of crime).However, there is usually less agreement about how to detect bias motivation behind a conduct. Usually, we use the term “bias indicator” to identify the clues that suggest us that a conduct was motivated by bias.Broadly, there are three approaches to this:1) Accept subjective perceptions of victims as bias indicator. This means that, if victims perceive that they were targeted because of bias or prejudice, the incident will meet the criteria to be categorized as hate incident.2) Accept perceptions of witnesses and third parties (not victims) as bias indicator. This means that, if someone who witnessed the incident, or someone else who knew about the incident at a later stage, perceives that the incident is motivated by bias or prejudice, it will meet the criteria to be categorized as an hate incident.3) Use lists of objective facts that can indicate whether an act was motivated by crime. Internationally, there are many examples of bias indicators tailored to detect hate incidents against particular communities.Some organizations decide the accept subjective perceptions of victims, witnesses or even any person, because they want to remove barriers to reporting. Often victims do not report because of fear of not being believed. This is one of the reasons why people do not report hate crime, which explains why there is so much under-reporting. To boost reporting, many organizations accept subjective perceptions as a bias indicator. Clearly, if subjective perceptions can be accompanied by other more objective bias indicators, the bias motivation can emerge more strongly, and reporters (both victims and third parties) are always encouraged to note and record bias indicators.Examples of bias indicators developed by Fundamental Rights Agency in Europe: Disability hate crime:• There have often been previous incidents. For example, financial or sexual exploitation; making the victim commit minor criminal offences such as shoplifting; using or selling the victim's medication; taking over the victim's accommodation to commit further offences such as taking/selling drugs, handling stolen goods, encouraging under-age drinking and sexual behaviour;• Opportunistic criminal offending becomes systematic and there is regular targeting, either of the individual victim or of their family/friends, or of other disabled people;• Perpetrators are often "friends", carers, acquaintances, or neighbours;• Incidents escalate in severity and frequency;• The absence of derogatory words (commonly heard as part of racist and other hate crimes) can make gathering of evidence more difficult. However, where such evidence is not available, but there is evidence of the offender targeting a vulnerable victim because of their disability, or causing greater harm to a disabled person, this should be presented to the court as it is relevant to the seriousness of the offence;• Multiple perpetrators are involved in incidents condoning and encouraging the main offender(s) - often filming on their mobile phones and sending pictures to friends/social networking sites, YouTube etc.;• False accusations of the victim being a paedophile, “informer” or “fun spoiler”;• Sustained attacks, excessive violence;• Cruelty, humiliation, degrading treatment, often related to the nature of the disability for example blindfolding someone who is profoundly deaf, destroying mobility aids etc;• People with disabilities are more likely to report incidents to a third party rather than to the police. Homophobic and transphobic hate crime:• Was the victim with a same sex partner at the time of the event? Were they holding hands or kissing? Were they wearing pride or other LGBT badges/ribbons/clothing (rainbow/pink or black triangles)?• Was the victim engaged in activities promoting LGBT/rights/services/issues at the time of the incident? Is the victim a public figure who is known as being LGBT or for advocating LGBT rights (the victim may be openly heterosexual but support LGBT causes and thus become a victim of a LGBT bias crime)?• Did the perpetrator use homophobic/transphobic language or terminology such as “faggot” or “pederast”? Did the perpetrator refer to the perceived sexual orientation, transgender status or gender identity of the victim?• Did the perpetrator use hand gestures that would indicate perceived sexual orientation?• Did the attack happen at a time of a major LGBT event (eg Pride festival)?• Did the attack happen at a time of political significance in the area for LGBT people (marriage equality laws being passed, opening of a new LGBT bar for the first time in a city)?• Did the offence happen near a LGBT premises/bar/centre? Did the offence happen in an area that is known as a meeting place for LGB or T people? Did the offence happen at a location that is known as public sex environments/cruising area?• Did the offence happen in a location/time where previous events have happened or at similar times? Does the perpetrator have a history of committing this type of offence?• Was there an unusual level of violence/brutality or sexual violence associated with the attack that would appear inappropriate given in the facts of the case? Did the violence concentrate on genital or sexual organs? Anti-Muslim hate crime:• Was anti-Muslim speech or symbols involved, such as references to: o 9/11: this is an anti-Muslim hate graffiti symbol which is used to associate Muslims with terrorism;o Crusade Cross: this symbol is also spray-painted in the form of graffiti following attacks against Muslim property, especially mosques; o 1389: this is the date of First Kosovo Battle, which is used as a symbol by some extreme nationalist organizations.• Was the victim visibly identifiable as a Muslim (such as a woman with headscarf)? Was the victim a Muslim community leader, imam or a human rights defender dealing with the protection and safety of Muslims?• Was the target a Mosque, Muslim cemetery, Islamic cultural centre, school/madrasa, monument to a Muslim personality?• If the target was a place with religious or cultural significance, was an object offensive to Muslims (such as pork flesh or blood) left at the scene or a religiously important item, such as a copy of the Quran, desecrated?• Did the incident take place during an Islamic religious holiday, Friday prayers or on the anniversary of some terrorist attacks, in particular 9/11? Did the incident take place in the aftermath of an attack attributed to a Muslim perpetrator?• Mixed motives: were racial slurs used targeting Asians, people from the Middle East or immigrants, such as an attack on local imam involving the shouts of “Turks out!”?• Mistaken identity: was the victim confused for a Muslim, such as an attack on a Sikh man, wearing a turban, with shouts of “terrorists out!”Anti-Semitic hate crime:• Did the suspect make comments, written statements about Jews, Israel and the Holocaust, about the victim’s being Jewish (such as “Kike”) or Israeli? Have references to Israeli-Palestinian conflict been made? Were slurs that display anti-Semitic stereotypes (suggesting, for example, that Jews are rich and greedy) involved?• Were drawings or graffiti of symbols, such as, the Star of David or Nazi-era symbols, such as the Swastika, left at the scene of the incident?• Was the victim visibly identifiable as a Jew, for example, by wearing a kippah/yarmulke, by wearing a necklace with the Star of David or a football jersey of a team perceived to be Jewish? Was the victim engaged in activities organized by the Jewish community, an organization affiliated with the Jewish community or an organization that could be perceived as being linked to Israel or the Jewish community at the time of the incident?• Were objects or items left at the scene that suggest the crime was the work of a neo-Nazi or another extremist nationalist organization?• Did the offender use behavior associated with membership in a hate organization, such as, using Nazi salutes, shouting Nazi salutes and making statements that deny or trivialize the Holocaust?• Did the incident occur on a date of particular significance, such as: o Religious holidays (Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashana, Pesach, etc.);o Holocaust Memorial Days, such as, 27 January, 19 April or 9 November;o Anniversary of a pogrom of local or national significance.• Did the incident occur on the eve of Shabbat, i.e., on Friday evening, when members of the Jewish community frequent the area when the incident occurred or are on their way to prayer?• Was the victim in or near a synagogue, a Jewish school, a Jewish cemetery or a Jewish community building when the incident occurred? Was the victim attacked close to a place associated with Jews, such as, a Jewish Museum, a Jewish restaurant, an Israeli Embassy or the site of a Jewish culture festival?• Was property damage inflicted on an object of religious or cultural significance to Jews, such as, a Menorah? Was a pilgrimage site (such as Rebbe Nachman’s grave in Uman or surrounding facilities) the target of the attack?• If the target was a place with religious or cultural significance was an object offensive to Jews (such as pork flesh or blood) left at the scene?• Have there been other anti-Semitic incidents in the same area? Has the victim or the Jewish community or the victim’s organization recently received threats or other forms of intimidation in the form of phone calls or mail?Hate crime targeting Christians and members of other religions:• Do the victims or witnesses perceive the incident to have been motivated by bias towards Christians or Christianity? • Did the perpetrator make comments, written statements, gestures or draw graffiti that indicate bias? This may include anti-Christian, anti-religious (such as Satanist or anarchist) symbols, or messages attacking church structures or doctrine. • Is there a history or pattern of prior sectarian violence such as conflicts between followers of Kyiv and Moscow patriarchy of Orthodox church? • Was the target a place with religious or cultural significance, such as a church, Christian school, Kingdom Hall (Jehovah’s Witnesses) or a cemetery? Was the property attacked in a previous anti-Christian incident? Attacks on property can involve damage to religious statues, objects, stained glass and or nativity scenes. • Was the victim visibly identifiable as a Christian, for instance a person wearing a cross or clerical attire?• Was the target a member of the clergy, such as a priest or a nun? Were the victims targeted while evangelizing, propagating their faith or distributing religious materials? Was the victim a convert to Christianity?• What was the nature of the attack? For example, did the attacker set religious items on fire or defecate inside a church? Anti-Christian hate crimes may also target symbolic objects, such as consecrated hosts that represent the body of Christ for some denominations of Christianity.• Did the incident occur on a significant date, whether for religious (such as Christmas or Easter), historical or political reasons?Racist and xenophobic hate crime (selected indicators):• Did the suspect make monkey chants, comment or make racist written statements about “Africans”, “blacks”, “Roma”, “gypsies”, “Arabs”, etc.?• Were drawings or graffiti of symbols, such as the Swastika, Celtic Cross among others found at the scene of the crime or incident?• In case of violence, did the violence involve racist and/or xenophobic symbols or chants or was it accompanied by racist, xenophobic chants or comments, pejoratives, etc.? In the case of property damage, did the property damage involve deployment of racist epithets (“nigger”, monkey, bananas, swastikas)?• Was the victim an immigrant/refugee/asylum seeker?• Was the victim a prominent figure (such as a football player, artists or politician), who was known for their specific race, ethnicity, or national identity? • Did the incident refer to or took place in an area of an ongoing or past interethnic conflict (such as Russia – Ukraine, occupied territory)?• Did the incident occur following or amidst political campaigns that scapegoated particular groups and blame them for various social ills such as crime, unemployment, lack of social or economic opportunities, etc.?• Was the victim in or near an area or institution identified with a specific group (Roma neighbourhood, or African/immigrant area, or Chinese markets, etc), when the incident occurred? Was the victim attacked close to another place associated with their group (African, Roma, immigrants), such as, community centre, administrative offices dealing with the groups specific needs (immigration assistance offices), cultural centres or clubs/bars, restaurants, shops, or specific embassies representing targeted groups and/or nationalities?• Was the target associated with accommodating or providing for migrants/refugees/asylum seekers, such as a shelter?The definition established by the Practitioners Working Group on Tackling Hate in VictoriaIn Victoria, a group of academics, members of government agencies and civil society organisations, and journalists from community media outlets met to build a collective approach to hate-related issues in Victoria. The group aims to collaboratively address policy, program and research agenda in Victoria in the context of hate-related incidences threatening social cohesion and individuals.One of the first discussions of this group was about a common definition of “hate” that would inform all activities and public communications undertaken by the group. The definition is the following:A prejudice-motivated incident is any incident in which any person believes that a person, property or group is targeted because of their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, trans status, intersex status, disability, age or homelessness.Definitions of hate must be “common, comprehensive and simple” https://www.osce.org/odihr/datacollectionguide?download=true From Practical guide OSCEEstablishing a common, simple and comprehensive definition of hate crimes for monitoring and data-recording purposes OSCE participating States acknowledge that a hate crime is a criminal act committed with a bias motive. Thus, every hate crime has two elements. The first element is that an act is committed that constitutes a criminal offence under ordinary criminal law. The second element is that the offender intentionally chose a victim or target with a “protected characteristic”. A protected characteristic is a characteristic shared by a group, such as race, religion, ethnicity, nationality or any other similar common factor. For example, if a person is assaulted because of her or his real or perceived ethnicity, this constitutes a hate crime. Adopting a common, comprehensive and simple definition of hate crimes to be used by police, prosecutors and the courts is the first step to collecting more consistent data across the criminal justice system. It allows for better tracking and comparisons, both nationally and internationally. These three components of an effective hate crime definition are explained in more detail below. Common: Adopting a single definition of hate crimes across criminal justice agencies allows for tracking of hate crime cases at each stage of the criminal justice system, and for policymakers and the wider public to understand better the criminal justice response to hate crimes overall. Data gathered based on this shared definition can be used to identify strengths and weaknesses in policy and performance across the criminal justice system, as well as strategies for improvementComprehensive: A hate crime definition for monitoring purposes should include the necessary data categories (i.e., criminal offences and bias motivations) to obtain a sufficiently detailed picture of hate crimes for use at the national and international levels. Any legal definitions of hate crimes, criminal offences and sentencing provisions already contained within the criminal code should be included. In addition, for data-collection purposes a definition may need to go beyond general legal provisions. For example, data could be collected on anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim crimes, even if the law lists only “religion” as a protected characteristic. Simple: A monitoring definition should be understandable to victims, law-enforcement agencies and the general public. As referred to at the beginning of this section, “a criminal act committed with a bias motivation”, sets out a useful and easy-to-understand starting point.Defining terrorism and violent extremismDefining concepts like terrorism and violent extremism is like opening Pandora’s Box: political and ethical issues are raised by any attempt to define them. These terms are loaded with meaning because they refer not only to forms of political violence but also to a rhetorical device used to condemn political opponents in public discourses, to stigmatize them, to justify any act of repression against them, and to single out minorities in political and public discourses.Think for example about the Christchurch Call to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online (https://www.christchurchcall.com/call.html). The Call was a political summit, initiated by New Zealand PM Jacinta Arden, that tool place in France 2 months after the Christchurch mosque terrorist attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings). In that summit, the leaders of seventeen countries (followed by another 24 countries in the same year) and technology companies pledged to remove “terrorist and violent extremist content online”. However, the document does not define “terrorism and violent extremism”, which could be interpreted differently by states. Some civil society voices have raised this problem by warning that the call could result in violations of human rights and free speech (https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2019/06/28/christchurch-call-combat-terrorism-and-violent-extremism-online-lacked-civil-society-input/). The concept of extremism is by definition a relative and ambiguous term, because it identifies a relative position on a continuum of opinions and behaviours. Depending on the context, the line that defines an extremist/radical opinion or behaviour from a moderate/legitimate opinion or behaviour can be drawn at different points in the continuum. Structural and circumstantial factors (such as the agendas of governments and security agencies) influence the definition of those terms in different circumstances and for different institutions, potentially creating conflicting classifications.As a reference point, here we propose the revised academic consensus definition of terrorism proposed by Schmid (http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/schmid-terrorism-definition/html), in which terrorism is both a tactic and a doctrine. As a tactic, terrorism involves the indiscriminate use of direct violent action against non-combatants and civilians. As a doctrine, terrorism involves the strategic belief that it will be possible to obtain legitimate political goals by coercing political actors, which can be the voters or the government of a country, through the use of fear. Terrorism is therefore not defined by the specific political aims or ideological goals of the action: there are terrorists that refer to a variety of religious and atheist ideologies. The Revised Academic Consensus Definition of TerrorismTerrorism refers on the one hand to a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of a special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence and, on the other hand, to a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or moral constraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its propagandistic and psychological effects on various audiences and conflict parties.We also propose the definition of extremism discussed by Neumann (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-2346.12049), which can describe both political ideas and methods by which actors seek to realize any political mean. In this sense, violent extremism captures violent forms of extremism, which includes violent ideologues and violent methods to achieve political aims.Definition of extremismIt may describe political ideas that are diametrically opposed to a society’s core values, which—in the context of a liberal democracy—can be various forms of racial or religious supremacy, or ideologies that deny basic human rights or democratic principles. Or it can mean the methods by which actors seek to realize any political aim, namely by showing disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others.The following table reports some of the definitions of violent extremism adopted by government agencies of countries around the globe. For further readings, we recommend this resource on the website of UNODC, titled “Conditions Conducive to the Spread of Terrorism” (https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-2/key-issues/radicalization-violent-extremism.html) Country DefinitionAustralia Violent extremism is the beliefs and actions of people who support or use violence to achieve ideological, religious or political goals. This includes terrorism and other forms of politically motivated and communal violence.All forms of violent extremism seek change through fear and intimidation rather than through peaceful means.If a person or group decides that fear, terror and violence are justified to achieve ideological, political or social change, and then acts accordingly, this is violent extremism. Canada "[V]iolent extremism" is where an offence is "primarily motivated by extreme political, religious or ideological views". Some definitions explicitly note that radical views are by no means a problem in themselves, but that they become a threat to national security when such views are put into violent action USA The FBI defines violent extremism as the "encouraging, condoning, justifying, or supporting the commission of a violent act to achieve political, ideological, religious, social, or economic goals", whilst USAID defines violent extremist activities as the "advocating, engaging in, preparing, or otherwise supporting ideologically motivated or justified violence to further social, economic or political objectives". Norway Violent extremism constitutes activities of persons and groups that are willing to use violence in order to achieve political, ideological or religious goals. Sweden A violent extremist is someone "deemed repeatedly to have displayed behaviour that does not just accept the use of violence but also supports or exercises ideologically motivated violence to promote something". UK Extremism is defined as the vocal or active opposition to fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs, as well as calls for the death of United Kingdom armed forces at home or abroad.