Incels as terrorists

Laura Bates in Telegraph:
I went undercover in the incel community to try to understand men like Jake Davison
If we're going to tackle the incel ideology and its violent hatred of women, we must describe it as the unacceptable extremism it is

archive version of the article: archive.is/Yd56N

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/14/went-undercover-incel-community-try-understand-men-like-jake/

The 'incel movement' It has no leadership

It feels like an morphic resonance (below) of angry men who then intersect online when they start searching and are led through 'faciliatative algorithms' on their journey where they meet others like them. There is no leadership nor a set of policies yet there are shared perspectives and animosities, common anger that manifests in similar ways.

Morphic resonance, Sheldrake says, is "the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species" and accounts for phantom limbs, how dogs know when their owners are coming home, and how people know when someone is staring at them.

Other than perhaps the LSE (London School of Economics) I'd struggle to think of any recognisable structure in England that would identify as an incel grouping/organisation that wasn't online-only. And LSE only revealed itself recently as a woman-hating educational establishment. And the LSE's incel cell residing in its Gender Studies Faculty, though woman-hating, comes principally from the perspective of the TRA/MRA's.

The 'incel movement' It has no leadership, and I don't reckon even the Gender Studies Faculty head of the LSE would be willing to identify as an incel-leader (being female I doubt she'd be accepted). With no leaders there are no policies agreed and no direction adopted, it's not really a movement, more a collective expression of hatred of women expressed by some men, aided by some women.

The “manosphere” is getting more toxic as angry men join the incels

I've just been listening to an interview with a Professor from the University of Bucks. on Radio 5 (begins around 8.20 this morning) talking about the internet spread of "so-called Libertarian movements of the USA" , and, besides incels, spoke of 'other groups who reinforce themselves on social media' attacking women. I think we should think of them as akin to religious movements and with a similar endgame of imposing social control, and I really recommend the historian Norman Cohn's series of books beginning with 'The Pursuit of the Millennium' for an examination of historical cult-like behaviour, including witch hunts.

SmokedDuck

I know that the widening of the definition of terrorism occurred so the government could treat its perpetrators differently. However, I fail to see how committing a mass shouting in the name of inceldom is any less ideological than committing it in the name of religion. The incels have a ‘language’ and vision for the future. It’s not just about generalised hatred of women.

Many of you are saying you “knew what it was” once terrorism had been ruled out, but I bet almost all of you initially thought that it was something closer to the attacks we’ve seen in London (as I did)

Like a PP my first thought was family murder. When his age was reported I knew his mother was one of the victims before it was reported.

I have to say the comments on that Daily Mail article are encouraging. I was expecting lots of “feminism is to blame” tripe but no.

I've been quite surprised by this too. Another incel on Twitter was claiming the women of Plymouth should shoulder responsibility for this man's actions, there were many responses condemning the tweet, only one supporting.

As a pp has pointed out, in Scotland under the Hate Crime Bill, incel attacks against women are not hate crimes as sex is not included as a category to be protected under the Bill. We have instead been offered a toothless 'Misogny Working Group' which is unlikely to come to any conclusions/action points in the next year or so. Requests were made to include women under the Hate Crime Act until the Misogny Working Group had produced their findings. This was denied.

Sorry, wrong thread.

According to Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the government is likely to consider treating so-called “incels” as terrorists.

Hall told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “The question is really whether or not the authorities want to treat the incel phenomenon as a terrorist risk. That would involve diverting resources or putting resources into it. If we see more of these sorts of attacks, then I have got no doubt that it will be treated more seriously as terrorism.”

Not exactly comforting. I wonder how many more attacks the government consider necessary.

The way forward here is to look at this the way we do the question of "Torture." Following the cases involving the British Army in NI in the 70s, the definition of torture was kept narrow, but the concept of 'inhuman and/or degrading treatment' conistent with the methods and practices of torture was added to the various laws and conventions as a lesser bar.

I have to say the comments on that Daily Mail article are encouraging. I was expecting lots of “feminism is to blame” tripe but no.

Jonathan Hall QC, the terrorism watchdog, last month referred to the threat from terrrorism becoming 'more blurred' where it is 'hard to distinguish between what is conventionally understood as terrorism and what is not.'

He said there were 'considerable difficulties' in identifying whether desires to kill expressed online, particularly when expressed by the young, will translate into acts of terrorism in real life.

'If there is an ideological component, and I think there may well be one, it is a nihilism which seeks the end of days,' he said.

'It has something akin to the revolution of the unhappy or the 'beta uprising' carried out by incels or involuntary celibates.'

archive of article: archive.is/vICpA

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9891119/The-rising-threat-incels-Plymouth-gunman-expressed-solidarity-misogynistic-movement.html

Of course they're not terrorists. They attack creatures who don't feel pain that counts. Women. Not real people.

But even within this definition, you have to differentiate things like criminal acts from terrorism, and the marker is around trying to create political, or you might say institutional, change. So politics, even in the larger sense that includes religion or ideology.

But that's not the same as someone who is say, trying to kill women because he hates them, or even a member of a religious or political group which is just trying to strike a direct blow for their cause.

If terrorism isn't differentiated from warfare, or insurgency, or criminal acts, you lose the ability to talk about any of those things clearly, and to deal with them under the law.

A young fellow, even one frequenting incel websites, who goes out and commits a crime in his own country, is a criminal, and should be subject to the criminal justice system, including it's protections, As soon as he's labeled as a terrorist, there is room to treat him differently, including removing those protections. There are a lot of implications there.

It's also not just a UK issue, as terms like terrorism have international implications.

I agree, this man was a terrorist.

Many of you are saying you “knew what it was” once terrorism had been ruled out, but I bet almost all of you initially thought that it was something closer to the attacks we’ve seen in London (as I did)

No. Not in Plymouth. I immediately thought ‘family annihilation’ - sadly that probably is the explanation for the deaths in Kidderminster. Male policeman and small child.

Back in the 70s and 80s terrorist groups were well organised with clear political demands. That's all changed since 9/11. We've had terrorist acts committed without any clear demands or obvious motive, other than generalised hatred of a particular nationality/religious group/ belief system. We've seen individuals acting alone described as "inspired by" Al Qaeda. I think the definition of what terrorism is has changed a lot and what happened in Plymouth looks to me very similar to other acts that have been described as terrorism - basically individuals lashing out against others in despicable ways, driven by twisted beliefs but without any clear objectives or goal in mind.

"Many of you are saying you “knew what it was” once terrorism had been ruled out, but I bet almost all of you initially thought that it was something closer to the attacks we’ve seen in London (as I did)"

Not in Plymouth.
I remember Hungerford. My first thought was that this was something similar. Michael Ryan shot his mother first, too.

The police and media were just trying to stop people jumping to conclusions about the racial profile of the perpetrator, and thereby preventing reprisal attacks.

Many of you are saying you “knew what it was” once terrorism had been ruled out, but I bet almost all of you initially thought that it was something closer to the attacks we’ve seen in London (as I did)

I'm still undecided on this - I see some very compelling reasons to term this a 'terrorist' outrage but it does seem pretty haphazard and indiscriminatory. I suppose we have to wait on further investigation (if those questions are actually asked of the evidence ) and see if this individual had a stated motive for going out and doing these atrocious things. Posting on incel forums doesn't, sadly, mean he did this in imitation of incel atrocities elsewhere in the world.

But the BBC news at 10 did just ask exactly this - is he to be regarded as a terrorist and is it right to talk of 'incel ideology' as terrorist? I'm actually quite surprised!

...followed by news saying that about two/thirds of Afghanistan is now controlled by the Taliban. Goodbye to decent medical care for girls and women there then.

Laura Bates on the news now, speaking the truth about misogyny.