Islam
A Crime to Promote Ideas that Offend Conservative Ministers? The Government’s Changing Definition of Extremism
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
The Government has concocted a new definition of extremism as part of an upcoming plan for promoting “national cohesion”.
According to reports, it will treat as 'extremist' anyone who undermines the UK’s institutions and values.
Great concern has been expressed by human rights groups that this proposed change marks the latest, and most serious, effort by the Government to restrict the right to free speech enjoyed by its critics.
To understand the impending danger, it is important to compare the subtle differences in wording that distinguish this proposed definition from the version currently in use.
The Government’s counter-terror strategy, Prevent, defines extremism as “the 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”.
While this definition too has received widespread criticism, the impending one appears to cast the net wider still, by asserting that: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values”.
The distinction between the two appears to centre on the term “active opposition” versus the “promotion or advancement of any ideology” that is seen as threatening to British institutions and values.
There is a difference between someone who is knowingly, actively, opposing Britain as a socio-political entity – and someone who is championing a cause they sincerely believe in, but who harbours no subversive intent.
What we are witnessing in the UK and the US is a weaponizing of the situation in Israel and Gaza to justify pre-existing right-wing or left-wing goals
Alexandra Hall Hall
The danger, of course, is that the latter individual, or protest movement, may nevertheless be ensnared by this new definition if the state deems their ideas to be risky to the established order of things. Indeed, the proposed definition seems to have little to do with measures to pre-empt terrorism and appears to be much more concerned with protecting the status quo from criticism.
Anyone claiming that this is a cynical reading of intentions should consider how this Government has treated its critics, particularly their right to freedom of speech and assembly.
Take, for example, the recently enacted Public Order Act, which equips the Government with new powers to restrict the right to peaceful protest, including what it calls “slow walking tactics”. Individuals may be subject to a “protest banning order”, which will then see them barred from enjoining others to protest for a given cause.
It was condemned by a roster of officials and organisations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as Conservative peer Baroness Camilla Cavendish, who described it as “an affront to a civilised society.” JUSTICE, the law reform and human rights charity, argued that the Government’s thinking on this issue appears to be increasingly in harmony with that of authoritarian regimes like Putin’s Russia.
It is noteworthy that the Act was implemented following a wave of protests by environmentalist groups critical of the Government’s energy policies; and Black Lives Matter, which seeks to uproot what it frames as a systemic racism permeating Britain’s institutions.
But by reportedly rewriting the definition of extremism, this Government has its sights set on one group in particular: Muslim civil society.
Well-established outfits such as The Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Engagement and Development – the shared raison d’être of which is to represent British Muslim interests in the media and politics while combating the scourge of Islamophobia – are said to be 'captured' by the new definition.
The notion that the work done by these legitimate civil society groups risks toppling British institutions and dispelling British values is so absurd that it borders on parody.
Considering their well-established track records of campaigning for democratic participation among Muslims, which British institutions and values does this Government think these organisations are trying to overturn?
In the end, it is difficult to avoid the impression that these groups are regarded as anathema because they are critical of the Government’s methods to tackle violent extremism, particularly its Prevent strategy.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Needless to say, this is not because they are opposed to fighting terrorism – but rather, it is because the evidence simply shows that Prevent is broken and significantly discriminates against Muslim communities. These concerns are shared by human rights giants such as Amnesty International (which recently authored a report on the topic) and the United Nations.
The Government is making this move at a time when it appears to have been caught off guard in recent weeks by hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets to protest against Israel’s bombardment of the beleaguered Gaza Strip.
Senior officials have barely been able to contain their outrage towards ordinary people, particularly Muslims, for disagreeing with their policy toward Israel-Palestine.
The now former Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, characterised the peaceful movement as “hate marches” and repeatedly called for them to be banned. The protests, which have included Jewish and LGBTQ+ groups, have been so alarming to Communities Secretary Michael Gove that he has reportedly requested £50 million in new funds to counter “radical ideologies” in Britain. A number of senior Conservatives demanded that a pro-Palestine march in London be forcefully prevented by the police because it coincided with Armistice Day, on 11 November – a position which was repudiated by the British Legion who instead defended the right to protest.
The Government’s proposed change to the definition of extremism risks tipping society into a kind of dystopian political space in which it is a crime to promote ideas that offend the sensibilities of senior Conservative ministers. Yet, there is also an irony to all of this.
A fundamental part of the Government’s own definition of British Values is “mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs” – which includes political beliefs. This all begs the question: if this Government is attempting to muzzle those whose beliefs and positions do not align with its own, is it not then guilty of extremism under its own definition?
Adeeb Ayton is a senior policy analyst with Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND)
Ethnicised Religion and Sacralised Ethnicity in the Past and the Present
An expert panel discusses the phenomenon of ethnicisation of religious identifications focussing especially on the nexus of religious, ethnic and national identifications in colonial, anti-colonial and postcolonial settings from Ireland to South Asia. The commonly invoked phrase 'Islam is not a race' forms a ubiquitous racist trope that represents Islamophobia as a legitimate political critique of religious ideology, rather than a form of ethnic and religious prejudice. Yet in spite of such rhetorical acrobatics, it is clear that we are observing an ‘ethnicisation’ of Islam in 'the West' – the hegemonic transformation of hugely diverse 'Muslim' populations into an allegedly singular community, defined in essentialising racist terms. Hidden behind the language of a binary between 'Muslim' and 'British'/'European'/'Western' 'culture' and 'values' – viewing these as fixed communal essences, rather than endlessly variable phenomena reproduced in the material practices of everyday life – this ethnoreligious essentialism-come-racism has gained ever-increasing acceptance in mainstream political discourse. Islam forms a particularly salient example today, but the ethnicisation of religious identifications is a phenomenon with a much broader transtemporal and global history. So at this round table on 'Ethnicised Religion and Sacralised Ethnicity in the Past and the Present', we will discuss this phenomenon, focusing especially on the nexus of religious, ethnic and national identifications in colonial, anti-colonial and postcolonial settings from Ireland to South Asia.
What scares the new atheists | John Gray
The vocal fervour of today’s missionary atheism conceals a panic that religion is not only refusing to decline – but in fact flourishing
In 1929, the Thinker’s Library, a series established by the Rationalist Press Association to advance secular thinking and counter the influence of religion in Britain, published an English translation of the German biologist Ernst Haeckel’s 1899 book The Riddle of the Universe. Celebrated as “the German Darwin”, Haeckel was one of the most influential public intellectuals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; The Riddle of the Universe sold half a million copies in Germany alone, and was translated into dozens of other languages. Hostile to Jewish and Christian traditions, Haeckel devised his own “religion of science” called Monism, which incorporated an anthropology that divided the human species into a hierarchy of racial groups. Though he died in 1919, before the Nazi Party had been founded, his ideas, and widespread influence in Germany, unquestionably helped to create an intellectual climate in which policies of racial slavery and genocide were able to claim a basis in science.
The Thinker’s Library also featured works by Julian Huxley, grandson of TH Huxley, the Victorian biologist who was known as “Darwin’s bulldog” for his fierce defence of evolutionary theory. A proponent of “evolutionary humanism”, which he described as “religion without revelation”, Julian Huxley shared some of Haeckel’s views, including advocacy of eugenics. In 1931, Huxley wrote that there was “a certain amount of evidence that the negro is an earlier product of human evolution than the Mongolian or the European, and as such might be expected to have advanced less, both in body and mind”. Statements of this kind were then commonplace: there were many in the secular intelligentsia – including HG Wells, also a contributor to the Thinker’s Library – who looked forward to a time when “backward” peoples would be remade in a western mould or else vanish from the world.
Isis: an apocalyptic cult carving a place in the modern world | John Gray
History has witnessed millenarian violence before. But Islamic State’s modern barbarism is a daunting new threat
The rapid advance of Islamic State (Isis) through Iraq has produced panic in the west – not all of it irrational. In part this comes from a dawning recognition of the scale of the disaster that western intervention has inflicted throughout the region. By dismantling Saddam’s regime the west broke the Iraqi state. There were no jihadist groups operating in Iraq before regime change. Now the country has been torn apart by one of them. The same is true in Libya, where the overthrow of Gaddafi has produced a complete collapse of government and an “Islamic Emirate” was recently declared in Benghazi. Grandiose schemes of regime change aiming to replace tyranny by democracy have created chaos, leaving zones of anarchy in which jihadist forces can thrive.
Western intervention played an important role in the rise of Isis. By backing the Syrian rebels against Assad – another secular despot – the west gave the group an impetus it would otherwise not have had. With jihadist forces including Isis being funded from Saudi and Qatari sources, there was never much chance of a “moderate opposition” taking over in the event of Assad’s defeat. A radical Islamist regime, another failed state or some mix of the two were – and remain – the likeliest upshot. As things stand, there is not much the west can do to disable Isis in any lasting way. No one can seriously believe that this now self-financing, media-savvy and militarily skilful organisation will be snuffed out by a bombing campaign. At the same time the prospect of being sucked into an unending ground war is deeply disturbing.