Email This Post
Are you an Extremist? – Domestic Extremism Lexicon
The release of a memo by Homeland Security titled “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” has caused quite a stir in the land of alternative media. Critics from both ends of the spectrum have lashed out at the memo; yet, perhaps for the wrong reason.
The memo is a glossary of terms and groups commonly used in DHS (Department of Homeland Security) documents related to domestic terrorism. Neo-Nazis, Jewish extremism, hate groups, and tax resistance movement are some examples of terms that appear on the list.
A PDF of the memo can be found here.
An article “New Homeland Security memo lists black power, shaved-head Doc Marten wearers as ‘extremist threats’” by John Byrne from RawStory.com is a prime example of how this memo has been grossly misinterpreted.
The article presumes the memo is some sort of newly released watch-list exhibiting a list of domestic terrorist threats. Those who contest which groups were and were not justifiably included on the list, displayed a glaring misunderstanding of the nature of the memo, and the scope of the problem.
The lexicon states its purpose is to provide “definitions for key terms and phrases that often appear in DHS analysis that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States.”
That is, this memo contains definitions of terms and phrases that have been used throughout DHS analyses. It simply serves as a clarification aid to supplement these documents. Even without this memo, these terms have existed as the ordinary vocabularly of the DHS.
Hence, the problem is NOT the over-generalization of shaved-head Doc Marten wearers as extremist threats, as riled about by various articles. Rest assured, a bald man sporting Doc Marten who is not deliberately imitating a skinhead would not warrant arrest or excessive surveillance.
The heart of the problem inherently lies in the analytical protocol of the DHS, and the eagerness to adopt the label ‘extremism’. Memo or no memo, the government justifiably monitors the activities of all large organized movements. The government wouldn’t be doing its job if it does not study suspicious activities from any large organized movements (within legal boundaries). Yet, what DHS seems to be doing is manifesting an extremist counterpart to all of these legitimate political movements, possibly scrutinizing all forms of political activism.
Political activism is a key proponent of American history, and is, in fact protected by the Constitution; the rights to assembly and gave rise to various political movements that have changed the course of American history.
Sure, individuals have been linked to criminal activities in the name of animal rights, anti-abortion movements, anti-immigration movements, etc. Yet, the majority of those arrests were misdemeanors such as disorderly conduct, solicitations, and the more serious ones may include alleged blackmail or conspiracy, and that is extremely rare. An estimated 500,000 attended the nationwide anti-tax TEA Party protests. Now I ask how many individuals have been convicted for serious violent felonies related to the anti-tax cause in the past decade?
The fact that terms such as ‘environmental extremism’, and ‘animal rights extremism’ exist is deeply troubling. (My personal favorite is the term ‘anti-technology extremism’.) Yes, there may be individual extremists amongst these groups, but the groups themselves have neither extremist inclinations nor advocate such.
As long as these ‘extremist’ terms continue to exist in the DHS glossary, you can expect an array of problems oozing out of every corner of government from defence to judiciary, reminiscent of the controversy of the terms ‘detainee’, ‘enemy combatant’, and ‘enhanced interrogation’.
Really, the fact that the memo was rescinded within minutes of its release does not change a thing, unless these terms are realistically abandoned in the language of the DHS.
Related Posts
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Leave your response!