The Press and Journal (Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire)
‘Extremism’ is whatever Gove decides he would like it to be
The Tory secretary for levelling up has had the last word on undermining satire
It is too deliciously ironic that the government’s mouthpiece on anti-extremism is Michael Gove, who announced, with all due gravitas, that “our values of inclusivity and tolerance are under challenge from extremists.”
Where is Spitting Image, the satirical puppet show that lampooned politicians and public figures, when you need it?
Its short lived revival in 2020 included Gove, and one can imagine the puppet’s gleeful depiction of Gove’s old Cambridge Union speeches.
“It might be moral to keep an empire,” he said in one (recorded) speech, “because the fuzzy wuzzies can’t look after themselves.” Hurrah for Michael, the values defender!
Then there’s his old speech about Conservative arts minister, Lucy Frazer, in which he claimed “humorously” that he slept with her because anyone would, and everyone had, including the local rugby club. She was, he implied, a slut but he was… well who knows what Michael Gove – Aberdeen’s own as you can tell from his accent – is in his own kingdom. A guardian of democracy and equality, clearly. “It is important,” he opined, “both to reinforce what we have in common and to be clear and precise in identifying the dangers posed by extremism.”
Tricky. One person’s extremism, after all, is another person’s protest; one person’s freedom fighter another person’s terrorist; and one person’s humour another person’s puerile and misogynistic immaturity.
Are Tory donor Frank Hester’s comments about hating Dianne Abbot, and wanting to shoot her, extreme? Gove preferred, “racist” and “horrific”, but then, the government’s view of extremism in the last 13 years has been over-controlling when it comes to others, extraordinarily slack when it comes to itself.
Gove’s extremism definition attacks any organisation that, “negates or destroys the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” or, “undermines, overturns or replaces the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights.” This is heartening. Presumably, we can look forward to the repeal of the House of Lords, and the modernisation of the male-only Garrick club, which bars 51% of the population from membership of their male networking stranglehold. Not jobs for the boys in there, you understand, just a gentleman’s club, free from the gals.
Last week the club’s membership list was revealed. Guess who was on it? The usual assortment of ex-prime ministers and industry stalwarts of course. Plus, one supreme court judge, five appeal court judges, the head of MI6, and a variety of bosses of publicly funded arts organisations. Oh, and the King. And – hilariously – the minister for levelling up. Which is Michael Gove. Satire? Ah, Michael the Defender, the gift that keeps on giving.
The government’s definition of extremism is applied selectively. In the New York Times recently, there was a picture so unexpected, so shockingly graphic, that it winded like a sudden punch in the guts. A little boy, Yazan Kafarneh, from Gaza, lying on a trolley like a half-alive skeleton. His mouth was open, his eyes fixed, two dark brown pools staring out of the ghastly pallor of his sunken face. He had no cheeks left, just indented troughs of skins, while his mandible jutted distressingly to an emaciated point. He died, Yazan. Died at 10 years old of hunger. That’s my definition of extreme.
Yet, public protests about the death of children like Yazan have been described by Gove’s colleagues as “hate marches”. That’s extreme too. Indeed, such language ticks the government’s own definition of, “negating fundamental rights” and “undermining democratic rights”. (Just ask people in Russia, where protest can mean jail or Novichok.)
On any march, there may be those who express hatred, but that does not make the issue itself hateful. But an entire civilian population, a generation of children, wiped out in retaliation for the actions of a terrorist organisation? Yes, that’s hateful – as well as a recipe for fuelling extremism. What’s more fundamental than the right to live?
And in this country? It’s extreme that schools have recently reported that they have to feed children because they come to school hungry, and shower them because their families cannot afford to heat water, and wake them up during lessons because they have no bed to sleep in and fall asleep during lessons. It’s extreme and it’s heartbreaking and it’s plain wrong.
Extremism emerges from division, and the divisions we are creating between rich and poor, between Muslim and Christian and Jew, are deep and can only have alienating consequences. There is nothing healing, constructive, or conciliatory in government definitions or plans.
It’s the 40th anniversary of the original Spitting Image this year, the show Princess Diana once said she “adored” while the rest of the royals hated it. The thorn in the establishment’s side: essential for democracy.
What would the satirists make of Gove dismissing any review of individuals’ remarks (especially when they donate 10 million quid to the Conservative party) but urging a review of “ideology”? Something, I suspect, that would highlight his self-servingly limited definitions, and also illustrate the need for the government’s rooting out of extremism to begin within.