Mark Littler

Inside the EDL

2011-10-31T02:32:00.000-07:00

Following a summer of near constant research, I'm pleased to announce that Jamie Bartlett and I have (finally!) launched our report on the EDL with an editorial piece in this morning's Guardian (this can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/edl-heart-facebook).

It's been enormously difficult to keep quiet about the terribly exciting data we've uncovered - particularly given the group's high-level of media coverage this summer - however now that the research is in the public domain, I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss/debate its policy implications with a wider audience.

Similarly, I hope it'll serve as something of a teaser for the book that Jamie and I are releasing with Jonathan Barlett next week - The New Face of Digital Populism - which will, I understand, be available from Amazon from next Wednesday. More details to follow in due course!

The Census

2011-03-29T17:42:00.000-07:00

Earlier this morning I noticed a post on the BRIN website by my supervisor, the redoubtable Prof. David Voas, and felt compelled to share. In it, he makes a compelling case for census participation from the standpoint of an academic demographer and quantitative social scientist, and attempts to debunk many of the myths which have been touted around the blog sphere/twitter regarding the costs/benefits of participating. As the census form is still available to complete online, and many have as-yet-unsubmitted paper forms at home, I'd counsel you to read his post if you haven't already completed the census. Even if he doesn't change your mind, you will at the very least find his comments amusing. Click here to go to the post.

Biological and Chemical Terrorism

2011-03-21T08:17:00.000-07:00

I stumbled across a terrifying quotation from a transcript of expert testimony at the 1995 Senate terrorism hearings while reading D.W. Brackett's excellent study of Aum Shinri Kyo's Tokyo subway attacks, :

We do not presently have the capability in place to defend our cities against a clandestine attack involving chemical and biological weapons. In the case of biological weapons, it is unlikely we would even know we had been attacked until people begin to fall. We do not have adequate vaccines on hand, nor do we have adequate planning in place at the local, state and federal levels to manage the effects of even a small, relatively unsophisticated biological warfare attack. We would probably fare somewhat better against chemical warfare, but more because of the localized nature of the weapon's effects than because of any efforts on our part. In the absence of a commitment to civilian defense, the only organized response we can realistically hope to off the victims of a terrorist biological warfare attack is a form of triage: bury the dead, comfort the wounded, and pray for the survivors.

Kyle Olson, Senate subcommittee hearing on terrorism, 1995

Genuinely terrifying. I can't help but think how little has changed in our counter terrorism strategy in the last 15 years, and realise (with dread) just how vulnerable we would be to a targeted biological or chemical attack today. As the strategic gains realised by using standard (bombs, guns .etc) tactics diminish, the risk of 'ultraterrorism' can only increase. Policy makers need to realise this, and undertake a public re-evaluation of our susceptibility to such tactics. Public confidence demands a clear statement outlining our planned response, both to reassure the masses and to deter those who would strike against us.

Student Extremism - Really?

2011-03-16T05:28:00.000-07:00

While browsing for information on Lord Carlisle's forthcoming 'Prevent Review' I came across this article on the BBC homepage (http://bbc.in/fQeRu4) outlining some of the expected content. In it, they re-affirmed the widely held expectation that Lord Carlisle will announced the need for greater academic and institutional scrutiny of students, reiterating the popular view that somehow, the Universities are to be blamed for the 'explosion' in home-grown extremism/terrorism.

In my view, such an outlook is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Here's why:

One suggestion is that lecturers should more closely analyse essays and work submitted by students to spot troubling or revealing ideas, for example a student who is consistently arguing that attacks on civilians are justified.

Subjecting people's thoughts to scrutiny is hard - all you can examine is what they say. If we accept the contention made in much of the academic literature (See works by Jurgensmeyer, Berman, and/or Malik) that the 'generic' home-grown terrorist is well educated, articulate, and highly professional, it is ludicrous to suggest that they would be stupid enough to allow their extreme sympathies to shine through in their scholarly work. If you're going to go to the trouble of blowing up a chunk of a major city, it seems logical (and terrorists are logical) that you'd want to keep your views quiet in advance of the event in order to maximise your chance of success. Indeed, post-mortem discussion on the pre-event conduct of the 7/7 bombers suggests that they weren't exactly going around wearing sandwich boards advertising the attacks.

Even if you accept the premise (however unlikely) that would-be terrorists are going to advertise their intentions in their essays, it's worthy of note that (according to a paper I read recently - citation to come) the number of individuals considered an active terrorist risk in the USA is around 200. Assuming that this is accurate, that equates to 1 terrorist per 1.5 million US residents (see 2010 US Census). Hardly a huge risk.

Indeed, you're more likely to catch the far-larger number who tacitly support extremism - beliefs which may be abhorrent, but are, as far as I know, not illegal.
Surveys regularly indicate that support for terrorism in some communities runs to a double figured percentage. Despite this, few of them ultimately go on to become terrorists. Why? Because what we say and what we do are different things.

When you accept the fact that around 50% of adolescents attend University in the UK, the chance of picking up the fraction-of-a-fraction-of-a-percent who MAY become terrorists seems pretty slim. So the measures suggested seem to have a far greater chance of chilling free speech than of catching terrorists.

If we want to combat the holding of extreme views, I have no objections - but let's do so with a campaign of education, not by the covert surveillance and criminalization of those who hold them.

So a word of advice to Lord Carlisle: Let's try and keep the risk in perspective, and only make suggestions for counter-terrorist policy grounded in the facts, eh?

PhD Blog

2011-03-15T09:49:00.001-07:00

At the beginning of September 2010 I started a new job as a PhD Student at the University of Manchester, Institute for Social Change. Over the next three years I'll be working on a project investigating the relationship between Religion, Trust, Extremism and Terrorism using cross-border electronic lab experiments. Building on the work of such luminaries as Iannacone, Berman, Jurgensmeyer, and Gambetta I hope to use quantitative data to advance an understanding of contemporary terrorism grounded in the classical Durkheimian sociology of religion.

As is increasingly the norm amongst PhD Student I have chosen to maintain a blog in order to keep track of my thoughts and to share my progress and work with the broader academic and policy community. Certainly, I have benefited greatly from the insights advanced on other researchers’ blogs, and I hope to provide similarly useful content to other researchers through my own musings and insights.

In short: welcome to my blog.