Family Education director Norman Wells reflects on the government’s counter-extremism strategy
The government’s long-awaited counter-extremism strategy was finally published on 19 October, yet considerable uncertainty continues to surround how it will work out in practice.
At the very beginning of the strategy, the government adheres almost word-for-word to the formal definition of ‘extremism’ found in its 2011 Prevent strategy:
‘Extremism is the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also regard calls for the death of members of our armed forces as extremist.’
On the face of it, the definition may appear reasonable enough, but it contains at least three major shortcomings.
First, the ‘fundamental values’ listed are not definitive. We are told that ‘our fundamental values’ include ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs’. There may be other ‘fundamental values’, either now or at some point in the future, but we are not told what they are.
Respecting people or beliefs?
Second, it is by no means clear what is meant by ‘the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs’. Does it mean that the adherent of one faith, philosophy or political ideology must respect the freedom of another person to hold a position diametrically opposed to his own? Or does it mean more than that?
There is an essential difference between respecting and tolerating people who hold to a faith or set of beliefs different from our own on the one hand, and respecting and tolerating the beliefs themselves. Yet, the government’s definition of extremism does not refer to the mutual respect and tolerance of people of different faiths and beliefs, but of the different faiths and beliefs themselves.
It would therefore appear that ‘our fundamental values’ go beyond demanding respect for the human dignity of persons, and require the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. That is a quite different matter, and one which will prove problematic for people of almost all faiths and none, particularly in the present social climate.
As Professor John Haldane put it at the Family Education Trust conference in June:
‘The word toleration has been reinterpreted. Toleration is the primary virtue in the context of disagreement or difference. It allows us to live with people with whom we disagree. But in recent years, toleration has shifted to become approbation and approbation has shifted to become celebration. Intolerance is now defined as refusing to celebrate something with which you disagree. It is a corruption of language.’1
Vocal or active opposition
Third, according to the government’s definition, extremism is ‘the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values’. Or, to apply it specifically to just one of those values, extremism is ‘the vocal or active opposition to…the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs’. What does that mean?
If the adherent of one faith is seeking to persuade the adherent of another faith that the latter’s faith is ‘false’ and that his own is true, could he be construed to be vocally and actively opposing ‘the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs’?
Or if a teacher is asked by a pupil what she thinks about same-sex marriage and she expresses her view that marriage can only ever be contracted between a man and a woman, is she vocally and actively undermining the ‘fundamental value’ of equality? True, equality is not explicitly listed as a ‘fundamental value’, but as we have noted, the list of values is not exhaustive, and elsewhere in the document equality appears alongside democracy and the rule of law as one of our ‘liberal values’.
In his Foreword to the counter-extremism strategy, the Prime Minister states:
‘We will actively support mainstream voices, especially in our faith communities and in civil society. That means supporting all those who want to fight extremism, but are too often disempowered or drowned out in the debate.’
But that, too, begs the question: whose voices are to be regarded as ‘mainstream’? Is there room in the mainstream for those who question many of the dogmas of the equality and diversity agenda, for example?
There is plenty of scope for the law of unintended consequences to come into play in the outworking of the counter-extremism strategy. Nowhere is this more likely than in relation to the expression of views against the practice of homosexuality or same-sex marriage.
Freedom of speech
Anticipating the publication of the counter-extremism bill, Philip Johnston noted that:
‘[T]he proposed definition of extremist views is intended to stop radical Islamist preachers influencing a new generation of potential terrorists, but it is so widely drawn that it will inevitably ensnare the wrong people. How long, for instance, before someone who expresses opposition to same-sex marriage is arraigned under the law? After all, what was until recently an orthodox, mainstream view founded on religious belief is now considered hateful and potentially criminal. This is why a campaign against the Bill is being mounted, not just by Muslims who fear they will be unfairly targeted for religious utterances but also by Christian and secular organisations. The Government promises to direct these new powers against terrorist sympathisers, yet we have seen too often in the past how laws introduced for one purpose are used for another.’2
The openly homosexual columnist, Andrew Pierce, agrees:
‘It’s only a matter of time before anyone who has the temerity to criticise same-sex marriage, for instance, will be accused of a hate crime under the EDOs [extremism disruption orders].
‘Some Tory MPs have told me that religious education teachers who tell pupils that gay marriage is wrong risk being prosecuted under the new orders in the same way as hate preachers.’3
One Conservative MP who thinks that this is a distinct possibility is Mark Spencer. During the summer, he advised a constituent that Christians with traditional views on marriage were ‘perfectly entitled to express their views’, but that in some contexts it could constitute ‘hate speech’. Mr Spencer explained:
‘I believe that everybody in society has a right to free speech and to express their views without fear of persecution. The EDOs will not serve to limit but rather to guarantee it: it is those who seek to stop other people expressing their beliefs who will be targeted. Let me give you an example, one which lots of constituents have been writing about – talking about gay marriage in schools…
‘The new legislation specifically targets hate speech, so teachers will still be free to express their understanding of the term ‘marriage’, and their moral opposition to its use in some situations without breaking the new laws. The EDOs, in this case, would apply to a situation where a teacher was specifically teaching that gay marriage is wrong.’4
Need for caution
Already, at grass-roots, there are school staff who consider it illegal to say anything against homosexuality. On 18 September, the Radio 4 Today programme carried an interview with Polly Harrow, the Head of Safeguarding and Prevent at Kirklees College in Huddersfield. She defined ‘British values’ as ‘those fundamental equality and diversity values which are about respect and about not just tolerance but acceptance of difference and others’.
The presenter asked her whether that meant that a Muslim who believes that homosexuality is wrong should be accepted. She replied: ‘If that’s what you think and that’s what you believe and you want to hold that in your head, that is your business and your right, but bear in mind that if you speak it out loud you might be breaking the law.’5
If the government is serious about the preservation of free speech – one of the ‘shared values that unite us as a country’, according to the Home Secretary, Theresa May – then it needs to think long and hard about its counter-extremism legislation and proceed with the utmost caution.
• HM Government, Counter-Extremism Strategy, CM9145, October 2015.
References
1. John Haldane, ‘The philosophical basis of the family’, Bulletin 159, July 2015.
2. Philip Johnston, ‘Laws against “extremism” risk criminalising us all’, Daily Telegraph, 29 September 2015.
3. Andrew Pierce, ‘Don’t outlaw free speech, May warned’, Daily Mail, 6 October 2015.
4. John Bingham, ‘MP: use anti-terror powers on Christian teachers who say gay marriage is “wrong”’, Daily Telegraph, 3 August 2015.
5. Radio 4, Today, 18 September 2015.