Peter Franklin is an Associate Editor of UnHerd.
Has the Government just gifted the Left another weapon against free speech? That’s what the critics are saying about the new official definition of extremism, which was unveiled by Michael Gove last week.
It’s easy to see why some on the Right are alarmed. Under the old 2011 wording, extremism is defined as “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
The new wording is supposed to be tighter, but can be read as more expansive:
“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).”
There’s a shift in emphasis from targeting actions (“active opposition”) to targeting ideas (“advancement of an ideology”). As for terms like “intolerance”, “negate” and “rights” – couldn’t those be strung together to mean just about anything? Even words with hitherto uncontested meanings, like “violence”, have been given the newspeak treatment by the woke left (as in the slogan “silence is violence”).
So, once again, it looks as if bungling ministers have been gulled into committing an act of Conservative self-harm.
But it’s more complicated than that. The new definition has defenders on the right like Lord Frost, whose uses his Telegraph column to set the new definition in its proper context. “None of this has legal force,” he says, “it’s guidance for government.” Specifically, it is guidance for government in its effort to prevent terrorism by countering attempts to radicalise individuals and communities.
Furthermore, if you read the document which introduces the new definition (published here by the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities), it is full of reassuring statements. For instance:
“This new definition does not seek to stymie free speech or freedom of expression. There are concerns that those expressing conservative views will be classified as extremist. This is not the case.”
It goes on to make clear that “advocating for changes to the law by Parliament, exercising the right to protest, or expressing oneself in art, literature, and comedy, is not extremism.” It even states that the definition is not intended to capture “protest groups which at times may cross into disruption but do not threaten our fundamental rights, freedoms, or democracy itself.”
So, nothing to worry about then? Well, not quite.
For a start, some of the assurances are less than reassuring. Consider use of the word “intolerance”. According to the guidance, it is used “consistently in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights” and is supposed to mean “an actively repressive approach rather than simply a strong opposition or dislike.”
All right: what about the campaign to keep transgender identified males out of women’s sports? Is it really impossible to imagine a hostile civil servant or judge interpreting this as an “actively repressive approach”?
Even if the qualifications, caveats, and footnotes in the guidance were absolutely watertight, what would prevent a Labour government from removing them? Future ministers could edit the fine print, but claim that nothing has changed because the main definition is unaltered.
My greatest concern, however, is with the concept of extremism itself.
According to the guidance, the new definition is “intended to reflect an ordinary, common sense meaning of the word extremism.” Unfortunately, it fails in that objective, because common sense tells us that ideologies can be extreme without posing anything close to a terrorist threat.
For instance, there are people who think we must achieve Net Zero by 2030, while others think we shouldn’t do anything about climate change. Relative to the centre ground (and to one another) these positions are extreme. But so what? These are not violent causes.
Conversely, violence can be associated with some entirely reasonable propositions, such as national self-determination.
It might help if the new definition made a clearer distinction between extremism of belief and extremism of action. But it would be better still if it didn’t try to define extremism at all.
Instead, the focus should be on subversion – meaning any attempt to overthrow British democracy and the rule of law or to persuade others to do the same. A further qualification of active threat could be added to distinguish between idiotic, but harmless, armchair revolutionaries and real dangers to national security.
Of course, no word can be perfectly defined. The greatest philosophers of the 20th Century failed to nail the jelly of language to the wall of logic, so mere ministers don’t stand a chance. Nevertheless, ‘subversion’ makes for a much tighter definition than does ‘extremism’. While all subversives in a democracy are extremists, not all extremists are subversive.
So far I’ve acknowledged the primary purpose of the government definition: the identification of priorities for counter-radicalisation efforts. But there’s a second purpose, which is to ensure that government departments “are not inadvertently providing a platform, funding or legitimacy to individuals, groups or organisations who attempt to advance extremist ideologies.”
That’s a laudable aim. While it is incumbent on democratic governments to allow free speech, they’re under no obligation to subsidise it. Apart from obvious exceptions like funding for public service broadcasting or political parties, the idea that the elected government owes its antagonists a living is absurd.
Any competent administration has a responsibility to stop taxpayers’ money from reaching individuals and organisations whose ideas and activities run counter to government aims; it’s not as if public resources are so plentiful that the state can afford to work against itself.
Quite obviously, the bar for the first purpose (counter-radicalisation) should be set a lot higher than the second (government not funding its enemies). Yet as it stands, they’re both tied to the same definition of what constitutes “extremism”. This is incoherent. The trigger point for Prevent-style interventions should be separate from the question of which organisations to favour with government time and cash.
It is, of course, especially important that we de-fund groups that undermine national security objectives. But the underlying principle should apply to government objectives across the board. Unwelcome fund-seekers shouldn’t have to meet a criterion of “extremism” to be shown the door, just to be seen for what they are: the political enemies of any Conservative government worthy of the name.
For instance, we shouldn’t be allowing civil service HR departments to be captured by Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) ideologues. We shouldn’t be funding museums and galleries to engage in ludicrous culture wars. We shouldn’t let NGOs use public resources to spread highly contested ideas.
Such change won’t come unless Conservative ministers get a grip – and that’s yet another problem with new definition of extremism.
It isn’t, of course, intended to deal with the general problem of activist-bureaucrats operating within the public sector. It does however reinforce the misconception that “objective” criteria, interpreted by officials, can substitute for ministers exercising case-by-case judgment. But when it comes to the struggle between ideologies, there is no substitute for politics.
The post Peter Franklin: Just how bad is the new definition of extremism? appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Peter Franklin
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.conservativehome.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.