UK’s tricky new definition of extremism
Debate in the UK in recent days on how to confront extremist threats to what Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called “our values and ... our democratic traditions” broadly represents a difficulty common to all societies who value their liberty: how much freedom can feasibly be curtailed in the hope of preserving freedom itself?
My instinctive feeling is, not a lot. But as freedom can never be absolute, nor can its defence. On the other hand, to borrow from the idiom of my previous life as a journalist, is it even a story?
In an SA environment of gathering dysfunction, poverty, joblessness, hunger, violent crime and abuse, and — let’s not overlook where hope might lie
— a looming election, it’s almost inconceivable that Westminster’s updated definition of extremism could be of anything more than passing interest.
But I think it does warrant attention. Britain’s new definition of extremism will inevitably impinge on the conversation about how to make or sustain successful, stable and dynamic societies, and extremism — what could loosely be called harmful ideas
— is probably inescapable in conditions of local and global stress.
Though nonstatutory, the Conservative government’s measure will be used to stop ministers and civil servants from talking to, funding or working with any organisation that undermines “the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy”.
This sounds like a good thing. As communities secretary Michael Gove said last week, it would “ensure that government does not inadvertently provide a platform to those setting out to subvert democracy and deny other people’s fundamental rights”.
Thus, ministers and officials will have to assess their potential engagement with society against the following: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: 1) negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or 2) undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or 3) intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”
According to The Guardian, the previous 2011 guidelines defined individuals or groups as extremist if they showed “vocal or active opposition to British fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
It is understood that there will be no appeals process, the paper says. If a group is labelled extremist it will be expected to challenge such a ministerial decision in the courts.
Like Sunak, Gove argued the case for “our democratic values”, saying “it is important both to reinforce what we have in common and to be clear and precise in identifying the dangers posed by extremism”.
A key, ironic, danger has been identified by the UK’s own independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall. “The [new] definition,” he cautioned, “[moves] the focus from action to ideology or ideas [which] is an important one because I think people will be entitled to say ‘what business is it of the government what people think, unless they do something with that?’”
What a tricky thing freedom is. Just last week I wrote elsewhere that “while liberty does appear to be the chief source of human flourishing, the demanding thing about it is that it is eternally incomplete, requiring perpetual attention and vigilance”.
The argument about how we challenge harmful ideas can have no end, not in a free society anyway: where the argument ends, authoritarianism begins.