Extremism or violent misogyny? A social work response to Axel Rudakubana

The UK’s counter-terrorism policy ‘Prevent’ is in the spotlight again. 

Axel Rudakubana – the teenager who carried out the horrific killings of three young girls in Southport last July – was referred to the scheme three times but was deemed not to meet the threshold for intervention. 

When this came to light, Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded by announcing a review of existing laws to address "extreme violence carried out by loners, misfits, young men in their bedrooms".

This included the suggestion that the definition of ‘extremism’ needed to be altered to incorporate the actions of individuals like Rudakubana. But how useful it is to describe these actions as ‘extremist’?

And more importantly, how could he have been prevented from carrying out these appalling murders? These are issues in which social work needs to have a voice. Social workers are involved with young males with highly complex needs, as well as working in the Prevent space where social work has had safeguarding responsibilities in relation to ‘radicalisation’ since 2015. 

Is Axel Rudakubana an ‘extremist’?

The term ‘extremism’ has been part of political language throughout the 20th century, but with many different meanings. The suffragettes in their day were described as ‘extremist’, yet now we would say this about those who want to take away women’s right to vote.

The term took on new significance in the post-9/11 period as definitions of ‘extremism’ entered legislation and policy. 

Within Prevent policy the term ’extremism’ has been defined as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance”. This is a definition which focuses on the connection between ideology and acts of violence. 

Hence within Prevent and its operational arm, the multi-agency Channel Panel, they will be looking for consciously held ideological motivations which create the conditions for terrorist violence – as manifested by Salafi-jihadist groups such as ISIS, and the neo-Nazi groups of the far right. 

Despite Rudakubana’s deep preoccupation with violence, the prosecutor confirmed at the recent hearing that there was “no evidence that he ascribed to any particular political or religious ideology; he wasn’t fighting for a cause. His only purpose was to kill”. 

Despite his possession of an Al-Qaeda training manual and production of the biological toxin Ricin, the Southport murders were not deemed to be acts of terrorism.

It is significant that three different referrals were made to Prevent for this individual. It suggests they took place due to a lack of other suitable places into which he could be referred, and the need for proactive multi-agency approaches for young people out of education, employment and training, many of whom have additional needs and at risk of being drawn into criminal activity. 

While Rudakubana did not have a diagnosed mental illness, he was diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Did the chronic underfunding of community-based psychiatric provision as a consequence of a decade of austerity policies have an impact on the lack of provision needed to manage and support an individual like him? 

Should the definition of ‘extremism’ be expanded?

Prevent began in 2003 as a response to 9/11, gaining further impetus after the London bombings in 2005 and other incidences where Salafi-jihadist groups carried out violent attacks in the UK and across the world. Within this febrile environment the extreme Right re-emerged from decades on the political fringe, with its anti-immigrant anti-Muslim agenda.

From the perspective of social work’s safeguarding role, our research demonstrates the way practitioners working in the Prevent space began their work around concerns with violent Islamist groups, and subsequently the extreme Right.

Prevent, then, came to be redefined as addressing both violent Islamist and far-right groups. Within the unstable political world we now live in, the threat from violent authoritarian forms of politics is also an evolving phenomenon. 

Many young men who become involved with the extreme Right are recruited online. And while the growth of this ideologically motivated violence was once focused on the remote corners of the dark web, it has now fully emerged within the political mainstream of right-wing politics, in the UK and internationally. 

The Conservatives, UKIP and Reform have all placed ideas like ‘White Replacement Theory’, a deeply racist idea, central to the politics of the extreme right, directly within the public domain. 

In 2022 Nigel Farage, now an elected MP for the Reform Party, joined far-right Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán and Fox News’ Tucker Carlson at a high-profile conference in Hungary where speaker after speaker expounded this theory. It was also directly behind the recent attack on safeguarding minister Jess Philips by Elon Musk, who is now part of US president Donald Trump’s government. 

This highlights the complexity of the situation we are currently in. For while ideologically motivated violence is growing, government data also shows the largest number of referrals coming into Prevent are classed as “vulnerability present but no ideology or Counter-Terrorist risk”. 

Rudakubana is likely to have been such a case, and in this sense, we can locate him at the interface of social isolation, mental health crisis and a deep preoccupation with violence, particularly violent misogyny. 

The reality is that there is a cohort of young males who are susceptible to being driven towards extreme violence. Prevent will not always be the appropriate response, which highlights the need for a broader holistic approach to this issue of male violence. 

Conclusion

In a broader context we have witnessed a substantial increase in mental health difficulties among young people. We can see this as deeply connected to the precarity of the conditions in which so many young people are living – in housing, employment, and most importantly in their sense of belonging in the world. 

While the internet provides an opportunity for many young people to gain a sense of belonging and community, it also facilitates ‘echo-chambers’ for individuals drawn towards violence. The obsession with violence is a sign of the turbulent inner worlds of these young people, and this sits alongside a dangerous urge to blame and attack an ‘other’ onto which the distress they feel can be projected.

The extreme misogyny of Rudakubana’s actions is an example of this, and this reflects a much wider growth of misogyny and violence toward women and girls – the National Police Chiefs Council recently described the latter as an “epidemic”.

Changing the definition of ‘extremism’ is not going to address any of these issues. The best way we could honour the memory of the young girls who were so senselessly murdered last July is to support robust early interventions and multi-agency approaches to meet the needs of these young males holistically, including funding mental health provision so that resources are available to work with the profound forms distress that are out there in the community.

 It is also essential to understand the way this distress develops into violent hatred toward women and girls, and that this is taking place in a context of the growth of misogyny across society. 

We need government agencies to acknowledge this and develop a plan to do something about it. 

Stephen Cowden is a senior lecturer and Research Lead in Social Work at the University of Gloucestershire. 

Tom Robinson is a PhD student and registered social worker, who is working in and researching safeguarding and radicalisation at the University of Gloucestershire.

Cathal Lynch is a PhD student and registered social worker, researching safeguarding and radicalisation at the University of Gloucestershire.