Address the danger of Islamism head-on
The Government is facing a backlash over plans for a new definition of extremism following Rishi Sunak’s Downing Street denunciation last week. Michael Gove has been tasked with devising a form of words that would allow public funds to be withdrawn from groups that refuse to conform to British values or which promote an ideology undermining them.
Organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain and Palestine Action are among those that could be affected. But some Conservatives fear the net will be thrown wider to ensnare gender-critical feminists or Christians opposed to gay marriage.
The obvious danger is that, in failing to address head-on the threat posed by Islamism, the Government will end up targeting legitimate differences of opinion in order to avoid charges of “racism” or Islamophobia.
Miriam Cates, the Tory MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, said any attempt to define extremism or fundamental British values was “very risky” because one person’s extremism is another person’s sincerely held and lawful belief. She added: “I am called an extremist for believing there are only two biological sexes and that you can’t change sex.”
There already is a definition of extremism described as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
This was devised as part of the Prevent process by a task force set up by the Coalition 10 years ago, but which has had little obvious impact. The task force said that governments had previously been “too reticent about challenging extreme Islamist ideologies … in part because of a misplaced concern that attacking Islamist extremism equates to an attack on Islam itself.”
It added: “This failure to confront extremists has led to an environment conducive to radicalisation in some mosques and Islamic centres, universities and prisons.” But this reticence still exists, as Sir William Shawcross pointed out recently in his Prevent review.
As Lord Frost, the former Cabinet minister, observed: “What we need is proper enforcement of the laws we have against, for example, incitement to violence.” Indeed so. A new definition of extremism will not make any difference as long as there is a reluctance to tackle the real issue.