Following a series of appalling terrorism attacks in Manchester and London and revelations by British secret services that the actual number of suspected U.K. jihadists totals tens of thousands, the government is forging ahead with its plans to establish an Extremism Commission. But what exactly does the prime minister and her government mean when they talk of “extremism”? Simon Calvert, spokesman for the coalition Defend Free Speech said, “Outsourcing the impossible job of defining an extremist to some sort of statutory commission doesn’t resolve the central problem: that ‘extremist’ has become a term with no meaning… It is a pejorative label used by those on one side of an argument to try to marginalize those on the other. Using it as a legal basis for draconian state action against citizens presents profound dangers to civil liberties, especially freedom of speech.”
The people of Britain had a new secular creed imposed in the form of “British values” devised by former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2011, which aims to prevent people being drawn into terrorism. It lays a responsibility upon staff in local governments, schools, the health service, universities, prisons and the police to implement the strategy, including referring individuals deemed “at risk” to a central referral point.
The public is told, based on government strategy documents, that extremism is the “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.”
But this is where critics are raising the questions: Who gets to decide what are and aren’t “British values,” and how much opposition is too much? What counts as “opposition”? Who gets to decide what tolerance looks like, and how is all of this monitored and enforced?
Human-rights advocate and former Member of the House of Lords David Alton said, “The government has yet to come up with a consistent definition, and for good reason. As with our hate-speech laws, a lack of clear definition tends to give more power and discretion to a regulator.”
The commission comes at a time when recent polls suggest that 54% of British citizens said they don’t think labeling views “extreme” is helpful when discussing political or social opinions and when more than 35% of the British public thinks advocating that Britain leave the EU and traditional marriage are extreme, while another 30% believe that advocating staying in the EU is extreme. At the same time the term “democracy” as a “value” makes no sense to most British students.
The government itself does not have a clear legal definition of what it means by “extremism” and “nonviolent” extremism. And Parliament’s Human Rights Select Committee has robustly pointed out the difficulties and dangers of defining extremism. “I’ve not met anyone who can really define it in a satisfactory way,” said David Anderson, a former independent consultant that reviewed terrorism legislation. “People are going to complain about neighbors; they’re going to complain about people they work with; the police are going to feel they have to investigate all sorts of people who are miles away from being terrorists but may just practice religion in a conservative way or may have eccentric political views.”
While Theresa May said the government’s strategy “aims to tackle the whole spectrum of extremism, violent and nonviolent, ideological and non-ideological,” only two threats are ever discussed, Islamic jihadists and the far-right. Rarely is there mention of radical Marxists, socialists, communists and other far-left organizations.
Given this context, those who hold traditional Christian beliefs and conservative views are concerned they will be targeted as “far-right” proponents of “nonviolent extremism” at the very least.
“Extremism Disruption Orders” (EDOs) would allow the police to restrict “harmful activities” of a suspected extremist. The definition of “harmful” includes risk of public disorder or harassment, alarm or distress, and threats to the functioning of democracy. The restrictions could include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to tell the police in advance of any publishing online, on social media or in print. Taking part in protests could also be banned.
Calvert said “The commission is the latest plank in the government’s misguided endeavors to legislate against so-called ‘nonviolent extremism.’ EDOs would restrict the activities of people the government thinks are engaged in ‘extreme activities,’ even if they have not broken the law.”
If the commission is tasked with defining who is an extremist, it will become an anti-conservative body with extreme powers, similar to human rights commissions in Britain and other nations. “That definition will be at the heart of all subsequent measures to tackle so-called ‘nonviolent extremism.’”
At least one member of Parliament has called for EDOs against teachers opposed to same-sex “marriage.” In a letter to a constituent, Conservative Minister of Parliament Mark Spencer wrote, “The EDOs, in this case, would apply to a situation where a teacher was specifically teaching that gay marriage is wrong.”
Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, who has long campaigned to protect religious liberties, cautions against the scope the government’s anti-extremism plans are taking. “By importing the equality agenda into the fight against terrorism,” he told the Register, “the government has opened up a can of worms, which could result in individuals and groups who do not support the ‘LGBT’ agenda, for example, being treated as extremists and accused of hate speech.”
The Crown Prosecution Service defines hate crime as: “Any criminal offense which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”
Essentially, if anyone, not just the victim, so much as perceives the criterion in the definition above, it is enough to count as a hate crime, whether committed in real life. Eventually labeling certain views and beliefs as hate speech will migrate to labeling them “extremist.” Lord Alton said, “The ‘hate-speech’ definition in law is so broad that much of the Christian moral tradition, when expressed clearly, can fall afoul of the law if the subjective experience of the hearer is a negative one.
“Part of the problem is that there are people within the government who see all religions as the same,” he added, “and often as a threat, not least to their secular atheism — and so they approach the problem of extremism with an approach based on one-size-fits-all.”
Labeling someone as an extremist is, in essence, a license to hate them and to persecute them.
“When the protection of human laws shall be withdrawn from those who honor the law of God, there will be, in different lands, a simultaneous movement for their destruction. As the time appointed in the decree draws near, the people will conspire to root out the hated sect. It will be determined to strike in one night a decisive blow, which shall utterly silence the voice of dissent and reproof. The Great Controversy, page 635.
Source References