Thread by @sundersays

How do we solve a problem like Maajid Nawaz, given what now appears to have become a journey to re-radicalisation?

Your advice please - on how some dangers may be averted.

I've been chronicling this but want to step back, by late Jan. So a few ideas on how others might help.

"Don't feed the trolls" is often good advice. There are limits to how much anyone can worry about online misinformation.

I see these 3 reasons why Mr Nawaz is a different case to AN Other tweeters

They may suggest some 'horses for courses' approaches to who could address what.

In November, I thought this was a knockabout online politics debate: was saying Trump could win the Presidency, after Nov 4th, just clutching at straws?

The content in last 3 days & since Jan 5th has been much worse. Hitting a dangerous new low today

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1349005684692701184

The core responsibility of @LBC is to keep their broadcast output within the editorial code and Ofcom regulations.

None of us like to pick public fights with colleagues. An LBC senior reporter Matthew Thompson did set out where the boundary needs to be.

https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1327624419905331200

If others feel the content crosses the line, its possible to complain - to LBC or Ofcom. I have done so (once) about an irresponsible and factually wrong "Lockdown Kills" monologue. I have been told I might hear something about that in another 10 days

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1346473168995713025

This was irresponsible broadcasting. Nawaz (taking calls on May's UK local elections) states his view that "responsible citizens" felt the Washington insurrection was their "only option". There had not been a free & fair election in the USA.

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1348392486759256065

People might complain about that one too. A trickier question about LBC. Do broadcasters & media experts have a view?

Should LBC stick to narrow view - all that matters is what is said in their studio (which is much calmer) so none of the online conspiracies are their business?

Clear why an org may do that: it may avoid opening a can of worms. So a Jekyll/Hyde compromise of a calmer "Regulated Maajid" and "Online Maajid" (promoting radicalisng conspiracy memes)?

Any limits to what can be ignored? Reputational? Duty of Care? Threats? Radicalisation?

Two sets of questions for LBC
(1) Is editorial oversight working? Were boundaries crossed on air - eg "lockdown kills" claims; Sidney Powell Dominion allegations were "not conspiracy theory"; US insurrectionists "responsible citizens" pursuing "only option" after stolen election?

(2) Can LBC ignore Online Maajid?

Conflict of Interest also a direct responsibility for LBC. I just do not know if reports/speculation) that MN's strong pro-Trump advocacy reflects QF donors are valid. But it would be part of LBC's job to check it is all above board.

More questions have been asked of @LBC than of @QuilliamOrg which calls itself "the world's first counter-extremism think-tank, with a full spectrum approach to promote pluralism and inspire change".

It tackles extremism of all kinds - and is localising its efforts, with a UK team, a North America team, and a global team
quilliaminternational.com/about/

Quilliam seem to have a different focus now to the org when it was very prominent in the UK. It had £1 million of Home Office |funding, 2008-12, in its start-up phase. As far as I know, it has not had UK govt funding in recent years
gov.uk/government/pub…

QF remained influential after that. While Nawaz was never a formal adviser to David Cameron, to my knowledge, he did tweet that he was "proud to have helped" with the then PM's 2015 speech on Islamism and counter-extremism, saying "our work is taking root"
theguardian.com/politics/2015/…

Its tricky to find much up-to-date info on the main QF website. The @QuilliamOrg Twitter feed suggests a mainly international focus over the last year. This challenge to Labour engagement with the SWP on 15/10/2020 is the last UK-focused post

This section of the website captures the range of international activities that QF has been involved in recently
journal.quilliaminternational.com

QF do say that QAnon may seem like an elaborate joke, but that the "crazy cult" is dangerous and worth taking seriously. They ran a webinar on this with credible experts in October

You can watch the QF seminar on QAnon here.

https://twitter.com/QuilliamOrg/status/1315589149316067330

On Quilliam: the organisation considers the QAnon theory a dangerous form of extremism. Do they need to engage privately and/or publicly with their founder becoming rather adjacent to it, and to related forms of unsubstantiated pro-Trump conspiracies since the election?

One suggestion on Quilliam. I feel it is for those who have been supportive and constructively engaged with the work of QF to make this point to QF. (Those who have always been critical of Nawaz/QF can't add much directly there). It is also a legitimate question from the media.

Question: is there anything the counter-extremism policy community could or should be doing about - either to intervene directly; and/or to learn from this episode?

Akeela Ahmed MBE, chair of the anti-Muslim hate working group, has said this

https://twitter.com/AkeelaAhmed/status/1349063012167151617

Finally, no mainstream/national media coverage of this (though Washington Post featured Mr Nawaz in a piece on international). He had a high profile as a deradicalised extremist turned inside influencer with New Labour, Cameron and Clegg (for whom he stood in 2015 GE)

I think serious broadsheet, broadcast media could make a useful contribution.
- It would be a way to ask questions (and potentially get some answers).
- Done seriously, this could illuminate several key themes in again topical issues of radicalisation & deradicalisation

This thread suggested by @Sime0nStylites Thanks for your contributions and feedback so far

https://twitter.com/Sime0nStylites/status/1349054275146690561

Background: this openness to and promotion of conspiracy and misinformation is documented here.

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1346997950845755394

Developments: Post-election thread tracking whether or when Mr Nawaz may acknowledge that the certification of President-elect Biden took place (not yet); and/or accept the final outcome of the election process as legitimate (as he said he would)

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1347719131836133377