The Rt Hon Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC is a former Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Chancellor, and Solicitor-General for England and Wales.
This is an extract of an essay from a new book, ‘Liberalism liberated,’ published by Bright Blue.
The appalling antisemitic attack on a Manchester synagogue on 2 October 2025, which resulted in the murder of a British citizen, highlights the ongoing threat of extremist violence in the UK. Despite security services preventing 43 late-stage terrorist attacks between 2017 and 2024, hate crimes motivated by race and religion have increased, indicating that current counter-extremism strategies are not sufficiently effective.
Traditional approaches to countering extremism often focus on challenging extremist ideologies, aiming to equip individuals with the critical thinking skills needed to reject flawed doctrines. While this method avoids the pitfalls of heavy-handed security measures and respects the importance of open debate in a liberal society, it has not succeeded in reducing division or violence.
The murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013 by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, both former members of the UK-based Islamist group Al Muhajiroun, is a stark example of how extremist ideology can inspire violence among British nationals. While a superficial analysis might attribute their actions to ideological conviction — specifically, extremist interpretations around the concept of Takfir, which considers that fellow Muslims who hold more moderate beliefs are apostates and thus liable to be killed — a closer examination reveals that neither perpetrator was particularly devout or knowledgeable about the faith they claimed to defend.
Research by scholars such as Marc Sageman and Quintin Wiktorowicz supports this view, indicating that many individuals who commit extremist acts are motivated by a desire for belonging or meaning and are influenced by insular communities led by figures who exploit grievances and vulnerabilities. These leaders use the appearance of religious or intellectual authority to justify violence or rejection of liberal values, but the underlying motivation for followers is frequently a sense of alienation or lack of protection. This was a strong factor that drew people into extremist paramilitary groups on either side of the political and religious divide in Northern Ireland during the era of the Troubles.
I am not arguing that no extremists are ideological.
Neo-Nazi thinkers like Guillaume Faye or Islamists such as Anjem Choudary certainly were. However, in a liberal society, their ideas cannot simply be airbrushed from public debate. Given our increasingly fragmented media, a strategy that solely seeks to counter such ideas to foster community cohesion is doomed to fail.
After incidents of extremist violence, cross-community protection committees should be established to articulate shared values and coordinate with local authorities and law enforcement. These committees would include credible leaders from different communities, whose members would work together to address security concerns and promote inclusivity. By involving a broad range of community representatives, this approach avoids the perception that counter-extremism efforts are government dictates targeting specific groups.
The protection committees would be as inclusive as possible, welcoming all proven or potential community leaders committed to liberal principles. This model learns from the shortcomings of earlier initiatives, such as the Prevent programme, which sometimes fostered mistrust by appearing to single out certain communities.
This strategy also recognises the changing nature of extremist threats. The rise of violent online subcultures and alt-right movements has complicated the security landscape. However, by focusing on community protection and addressing the root causes of vulnerability, the UK can build a more cohesive and resilient society.
When, as Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, I had to respond to the terrorist outrages of the Fishmonger’s Hall murders in 2019 and the Streatham attack of 2020, I took the firm view that our legal system must be equipped not only to punish those who commit such acts, but to prevent their recurrence and to protect our communities from those determined to do us harm.
That is why I acted decisively to end the automatic early release of terrorist offenders. The Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 ensured that the Parole Board now determine releases, ensuring that dangerous individuals remain behind bars until it is safe to release them.
Community protection does not end at the prison gate.
Effective supervision and rehabilitation are equally vital. The creation of a National Security Division within the Probation Service brought dedicated expertise to the management of terrorist offenders. Polygraph testing, enhanced search powers and closer intelligence sharing have improved our ability to monitor those on licence. These measures are not about punishment for its own sake; they are about foresight, prevention, and reassuring the public that risks are being actively managed.
Extremism wears many guises.
Whether motivated by Islamist ideology, far-right hatred, or any other creed of intolerance, the effect on victims and communities is the same. A modern justice system must treat all forms of extremism with equal resolve, supporting deradicalisation and rehabilitation wherever possible, while acting decisively where risk remains.
The Rt Hon Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC is a former Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Chancellor, and Solicitor-General for England and Wales.
This is an extract of an essay from a new book, ‘Liberalism liberated,’ published by Bright Blue.
The appalling antisemitic attack on a Manchester synagogue on 2 October 2025, which resulted in the murder of a British citizen, highlights the ongoing threat of extremist violence in the UK. Despite security services preventing 43 late-stage terrorist attacks between 2017 and 2024, hate crimes motivated by race and religion have increased, indicating that current counter-extremism strategies are not sufficiently effective.
Traditional approaches to countering extremism often focus on challenging extremist ideologies, aiming to equip individuals with the critical thinking skills needed to reject flawed doctrines. While this method avoids the pitfalls of heavy-handed security measures and respects the importance of open debate in a liberal society, it has not succeeded in reducing division or violence.
The murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013 by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, both former members of the UK-based Islamist group Al Muhajiroun, is a stark example of how extremist ideology can inspire violence among British nationals. While a superficial analysis might attribute their actions to ideological conviction — specifically, extremist interpretations around the concept of Takfir, which considers that fellow Muslims who hold more moderate beliefs are apostates and thus liable to be killed — a closer examination reveals that neither perpetrator was particularly devout or knowledgeable about the faith they claimed to defend.
Research by scholars such as Marc Sageman and Quintin Wiktorowicz supports this view, indicating that many individuals who commit extremist acts are motivated by a desire for belonging or meaning and are influenced by insular communities led by figures who exploit grievances and vulnerabilities. These leaders use the appearance of religious or intellectual authority to justify violence or rejection of liberal values, but the underlying motivation for followers is frequently a sense of alienation or lack of protection. This was a strong factor that drew people into extremist paramilitary groups on either side of the political and religious divide in Northern Ireland during the era of the Troubles.
I am not arguing that no extremists are ideological.
Neo-Nazi thinkers like Guillaume Faye or Islamists such as Anjem Choudary certainly were. However, in a liberal society, their ideas cannot simply be airbrushed from public debate. Given our increasingly fragmented media, a strategy that solely seeks to counter such ideas to foster community cohesion is doomed to fail.
After incidents of extremist violence, cross-community protection committees should be established to articulate shared values and coordinate with local authorities and law enforcement. These committees would include credible leaders from different communities, whose members would work together to address security concerns and promote inclusivity. By involving a broad range of community representatives, this approach avoids the perception that counter-extremism efforts are government dictates targeting specific groups.
The protection committees would be as inclusive as possible, welcoming all proven or potential community leaders committed to liberal principles. This model learns from the shortcomings of earlier initiatives, such as the Prevent programme, which sometimes fostered mistrust by appearing to single out certain communities.
This strategy also recognises the changing nature of extremist threats. The rise of violent online subcultures and alt-right movements has complicated the security landscape. However, by focusing on community protection and addressing the root causes of vulnerability, the UK can build a more cohesive and resilient society.
When, as Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, I had to respond to the terrorist outrages of the Fishmonger’s Hall murders in 2019 and the Streatham attack of 2020, I took the firm view that our legal system must be equipped not only to punish those who commit such acts, but to prevent their recurrence and to protect our communities from those determined to do us harm.
That is why I acted decisively to end the automatic early release of terrorist offenders. The Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 ensured that the Parole Board now determine releases, ensuring that dangerous individuals remain behind bars until it is safe to release them.
Community protection does not end at the prison gate.
Effective supervision and rehabilitation are equally vital. The creation of a National Security Division within the Probation Service brought dedicated expertise to the management of terrorist offenders. Polygraph testing, enhanced search powers and closer intelligence sharing have improved our ability to monitor those on licence. These measures are not about punishment for its own sake; they are about foresight, prevention, and reassuring the public that risks are being actively managed.
Extremism wears many guises.
Whether motivated by Islamist ideology, far-right hatred, or any other creed of intolerance, the effect on victims and communities is the same. A modern justice system must treat all forms of extremism with equal resolve, supporting deradicalisation and rehabilitation wherever possible, while acting decisively where risk remains.