The recent riots in the UK, sparked by the Southport stabbings, have exposed troubling double standards in how society perceives and responds to far-right violence compared to Islamist extremism. This disparity calls for a serious redefinition of how we address far-right extremism, recognising it as the grave threat it truly represents. Far-right motivated violence is often classified as mere “thuggery” or hooliganism, while similar acts motivated by Islamist extremism would is likely to be swiftly labeled as terrorism. This inconsistency undermines the perceived severity of far-right threats and hinders the political will to take equivalent action. Downplaying the ideological implications also contributes to a skewed public perception of extremism, which ignores the impact of often widely held societal biases, such as racism, religious discrimination and anti-immigration sentiments. The language used in public, political and media discourse matters: it shapes how communities understand and react to different forms of violence, influencing the effectiveness of counter-extremism measures. Research conducted by the defence and security thinktank Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) in 2015 and 2016 in areas affected by far-right extremism found that communities often associated such violence with hooligans or criminals rather than terrorism or violent extremism. In contrast, extremism was typically linked with Islamism and violent jihad. This perception has significant implications for community-based efforts to counter the far right. It affects who is seen as responsible for leading the response, often leaving it to the police rather than other actors involved in counter-terrorism and preventing and countering violent extremism work, and how that response is conducted, typically focusing on punitive measures for individuals that do not address the underlying more widely held ideology. Thus, the way people define and understand far-right extremism affects the likely success of the measures aimed at preventing it. Rusi’s research suggests the nature of far-right violence, which is often seen as low-impact and disjointed, coupled with institutional bias and racism, means that far-right violence has historically not triggered the same responses from politicians, security services, and the media as jihadist violent extremism. Keir Starmer’s characterisation of the recent riots as “far-right thuggery” exemplifies this issue. While the prime minister’s intent was to acknowledge the ideological underpinnings of the violence, the term “thuggery” downplays the organised networked, and ideological components of the riots, as well as the individuals and groups involved. The riots should be understood in the context of the steady stream of activities and attacks directed against migrants and refugees in the UK in recent years. These incidents demonstrate a pattern of violence that has been largely ignored by politicians and the public. Moreover, these attacks are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of far-right extremism seen across Europe. For example, similar far-right riots have occurred in Dublin in 2023 and in Chemnitz in Germany in 2018, both in reaction to stabbings that sparked widespread anti-immigrant sentiment, with far-right groups exploiting the incidents to incite violence against migrants and refugees. Recent discussions about considering terrorism charges for the most severe incidents of far-right violence challenge the current framework and approach to dealing with far-right violence. While the “terrorism” label clearly does not apply to all cases of violence in the context of the riots, with many cases being better labelled as hate crimes or extremism, recognising severe cases of far-right violence as terrorism would align with a more equitable legal strategy, ensuring that all forms of extremism are prosecuted with the seriousness they warrant. The time has come to reassess the way we address far-right motivated violence, treat it with the urgency it deserves, and create a future where all forms of extremism are tackled with equal resolve and precision. Emily Winterbotham, Claudia Wallner and Jessica White are researchers at the Royal United Services Institute.