(The Center Square) – As the Washington State Attorney General’s Office continues work on a pilot project for a hotline to report “bias incidents,” it has separately started a task force focused on “extremism and mass violence” from a public health perspective, the first of its kind in the nation.
However, concerns have already been raised as to the true purpose of the group and the intent of its members regarding the impact to private citizens’ right to express their views without fear of government retaliation.
Speaking during the task force’s first meeting on Friday, Sharon Damoff told the task force that “too often, the government goes after citizens they disagree with politically, such as parents speaking at school board meetings and prolife citizens, these people have been falsely labeled domestic extremists.”
“Meanwhile, those committing actual violence, such as Antifa anti-Semitic demonstrators and trans activists are allowed to damage property and assault and threaten others,” she added. “Domestic extremism is a problematic concept.”
Parents protesting at local school board meetings was among the activities included in an Anti-Defamation League presentation to the state Legislature last year regarding white supremacy. The presentation also included the following as “conspiratorial” narratives “motivating extremists”:
Election Fraud NarrativesAnti-Critical Race Theory NarrativesAnti-Mask and AntiVaccine NarrativesAntiLGBTQ+ “Grooming” Narratives
The presentation was in support of House Bill 1333 sponsored by Rep. Bill Ramos, D-Issaquah. The bill failed to clear the Legislature, but this year’s operating budget included a $250,000 proviso funding the task force and directing it to “provide recommendations to establish a comprehensive public health and community-based framework to combat extremism and mass violence.”
However, the proviso also explicitly denies the task force the authority to alter “any aspect of criminal law, create new criminal penalties, or increase criminal law enforcement.”
Ramos told the task force that “a few years ago, I got involved with a number of people in the community asking for protection from police officers and sheriff’s departments and so forth. They weren’t being responded to. Law enforcement was not responding to them to protect them from others.”
He added that he’s “tired of hearing ‘thoughts and prayers.’”
When The Center Square reached out to the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs for comment on Ramos’ remarks, Executive Director Steve Strachan wrote that “Representative Ramos’ comments, if accurately reported, are very serious allegations. If Representative Ramos has any information that a Washington law enforcement officer committed or attempted to commit a criminal act, or that any Washington law enforcement agency refused to respond because the accused was a law enforcement officer, Representative Ramos should immediately report his accusation. If Representative Ramos needs assistance in reaching the appropriate law enforcement agency, WASPC is here to facilitate.”
One of the questions not yet answered for the task force is what constitutes “extremism,” a term not defined in the state budget proviso, and how it relates to the task force’s prime objectives.
Thurston County Auditor Mary Hall told the task force “we really need to take a deep dive into how we protect our communities from the incoming administration.”
In the AGO 2022’s report, State Attorney General Bob Ferguson wrote that “domestic violent extremism” was a term that “encompasses various forms of extremist and political violence like threats, coercion, and intimidation, online disinformation, extremist recruitment and government infiltration efforts, and the general spread of extreme white supremacism and anti-government ideologies.”
Consulted for that report was Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a professor at American University’s School of Public Affairs and Director of the Polarization and Extremism Research Lab who participated in the Nov. 22 task force meeting. Miller-Idriss is also a member of the task force.
PERIL’s website states that they “use a public health approach to design, test, and scale-up evidence-based tools and strategies that effectively reduce the threat of radicalization to harmful online and offline content including conspiracy theories, mis/disinformation, propaganda, and supremacist ideologies. As an alternative to security-based approaches that rely on surveillance, censorship, and incarceration, our work takes a multidisciplinary and pre-preventative approach to address hate, bias, and radicalization before they manifest into violent extremism.”
Yet some testifying during public comment expressed fears of future censorship or biased policymaking. Lisa Templeton with Informed Choice Washington warned of “the potential for this task force to make recommendations possibly based on political motives rather than actual safety motives that could violate medical and religious freedom, parental rights and free speech of all kinds.”
“It’s not that we in any way support criminal violence, quite the opposite,” she said. “We support law and order, and we peacefully work towards scientific integrity and public health policy and the protection of our civil liberties.”
Several others testifying that expressed concerns with the task force included Rebecca Faust, who noted that “when folks set up an unauthorized encampment on a university campus, block pedestrian traffic, harass and effectively discriminate against Jewish students … instead of being penalized, they are rewarded with concessions from the university that incentivizes bad behavior.”
She added that “it is not the government’s place to tell people what to think or say. It is the responsibility of government to protect people from violence and from violations of their basic rights. I support enforcing laws and regulations against harm to person or property, but [also] respecting free speech and freedom of thought.”
Initiative sponsor Tim Eyman also spoke during public comment, arguing that “we’re talking about regular citizens being investigated and interrogated not for some illegal act, but for their views, associations and friends, and there is no judicial oversight, no public viewing. This offers zero confidence of basic constitutional rights like freedom of association and freedom of expression will not be trampled, and it will all be done in private.”
He added that regular citizens should not be deterred from getting together and associating and communicating with one another, for fear of being investigated … and possibly jailed.”
