349. However, as emphasised above, the fact that the Claimant uses these various techniques or devices, does not obscure but, rather, enhances and sharpens the power and clarity of his core extremist messages, which would have been quite apparent to significant sections of his informed and engaged audience. Claimant’s ‘positive’ case 350. Third, it is necessary to examine the Claimant’s positive case and place it alongside his extremist speeches. 351. This reveals a conundrum in this case: there is a striking contrast between the Claimant’s apparently (benign) reputation in the local community and these (extremist) speeches and utterances set out above. It is clear that the Claimant has engaged in much inter-faith and community work over recent years, particularly with young people. It is clear that he is held in high regard by the local community, as witnessed by the testimonials from local faith and other leaders attesting to his good name. It is clear that the Claimant is, and has been, a respected and trusted figure in the Lewisham Muslim and wider community and has been for many years. How does one reconcile these two apparently conflicting pictures? 352. The answer lies, in my view, in the fact that the Claimant, Shakeel Begg, is something of a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ character. He appears to present one face to the general local and inter-faith community and another to particular Muslim and other receptive audiences. The former face is benign, tolerant and ecumenical; the latter face is ideologically extreme and intolerant. He has worked hard to cultivate an image of himself as a highly respected figure in the Lewisham community. However, it is clear that on occasions when it has suited him, and he was speaking to predominantly Muslim audiences and/or audiences who might be receptive to his message, he has shed the cloak of respectability and revealed the horns of extremism. 353. There is no evidence that any of the local community and other faith leaders who gave the Claimant testimonials (see above) were present at, or aware of, these extremist speeches by the Claimant. 354. Mr Bennett argued that the Claimant’s subjective intention was relevant when making the speeches, and the Claimant has given clear evidence that he is not an extremist and did not intend to espouse extremist views. There are two problems with this submission. First, the legal test is an objective test: the issue is what meaning his words in their proper context conveyed, not what the Claimant intended to say (see above). Second, the precise meaning of the WCO, is not that the Claimant is an extremist but that the Claimant “is an extremist speaker who espouses extremist Islamic positions”. It is not necessary, therefore, for the Court to find that the Claimant is himself an extremist who personally holds and believed in extremist Islamic views, but merely that he speaks and espouses extremist Islamic views. However, if and in so far as it is necessary to make such a finding, I do so. I am satisfied on the evidence that, whilst the Claimant’s speeches are not always consistent, the Claimant holds and harbours extremist Salafist Islamic views and, from time to time, reveals these to selected Muslim and other sympathetic audiences. 355. Mr Bennett argued that the fact that on other occasions the Claimant referred to “speaking the truth to oppressive rulers“ amounts to a ‘bane’ which ameliorates or washes away the clear statement in the DEVIANT GROUPS SPEECH (2009) (“… 82