Michael Gove's Muslim obsession behind extremism rethink

Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, believes that it is possible to label an entire religious group in such a way as to totally shut down dialogue, interfaith engagement, and to effectively “cancel” them, merely because one or more of the views held may potentially be different to government policy.

Contents

Move is an “authoritarian threat to society”Opposition has come from former ministers Christian leaders condemn shifting of goal posts Analysis Also read

It is due to this arrogance that he has ploughed ahead with what will be remembered as the continuation of years of anti-Muslim policies by government — broadening the already highly controversial definition of “extremism”. [1] [2]

On Thursday, Gove told the Commons that organisations including MEND, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), Patriotic Alternative, the British National Socialist Movement, and CAGE International are a cause for concern. [3]

He also claimed that, in particular, MEND and CAGE International are potential targets that may have public funding and access to government banned on account of “Islamist orientation and beliefs”. [3]

Move is an “authoritarian threat to society”

According to guidance issued on Thursday, 14 March, the government now views “extremism” as the following:

“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).” [1]

In a joint statement, Black Lives Matter UK, CAGE International, and Palestine Action condemned the move as “an authoritarian threat” that will be pushed back against. [4]

As the press release warns,

“Today Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, announced a new and expanded definition of extremism and named some of our groups.

“His announcement is a continuation of the decades-long strategy aimed at inciting and exploiting fears against Muslims to build an authoritarian and repressive infrastructure that suppresses any dissent that is not licensed by Whitehall.” [4]

The statement adds that the reasoning behind the government’s “counter-extremism” policy is one which “…serves only to strengthen the state’s coercive powers without any pretence of due process or judicial oversight.” [4]

“We will continue to engage in political activity, protest, and direct action for the public good, outside of the narrow constraints of ‘licensed dissenters’ which this new definition will seek to impose.

“We note that defining extremism has been a failed endeavour, despite multiple Prime Ministers and seven years of the CCE and nearly two decades since PREVENT was brought in.” [4]

Opposition has come from former ministers

To illustrate the disastrous nature of Michael Gove’s move earlier in the week, three of his Conservative colleagues and former Home Secretaries, namely Sir Sajid Javid, Amber Rudd, and Dame Priti Patel — two of whom remain Members of Parliament — previously expressed their public opposition to the plans. [5]

In the letter signed by numerous public figures including Neil Basu, former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service and counter-terrorism lead for the country, and General Richard Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff (head of the British Army), the cosignatories state,

“We urge the Labour Party and the Conservative Party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election.” [5]

The letter adds,

“It requires as broad a consensus as possible if we are to be successful in marginalising and defeating it.

“In the run-up to a general election, it’s particularly important that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short-term tactical advantage.” [5]

Christian leaders condemn shifting of goal posts

In a clear sign of the anxiety felt throughout not only the political sphere but beyond, top Church of England leaders including the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, warned of the risk to freedom of worship. [6]

Welby said in remarks given while speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme,

“It’s a general principle that extremism is a shape-shifter. It’s always moving around and changing itself, and it happens in all sorts of faith groups and it is a very dangerous problem indeed.

“The role of government is essential to preserve security, but there are different ways of getting to an understanding of what we mean by extremism, and it being decided by government without drawing in the groups and networks across the country is where the mistake lies.” [6]

Analysis

ANALYSIS

Dr. Salman Butt

Head of Islamic Thought

Same game, different rules

In 2015, I was defamed as a so-called 'extremist' in a 10 Downing St. press release, which I took the government to court over.

As well as a case for libel, our legal challenge also included a public law case arguing that the government has been acting unlawfully in its measures to counter so-called 'extremism'; for which we currently await our day at the European Court of Human Rights.

One of the many lessons I learned throughout this whole ordeal was just how meaningless 'extremism' is.

Indeed, at the High Court our barrister Mr. Paul Bowen KC masterfully laid out before the judge a list of people who would be deemed 'extremist' according to the government today — from Aristotle, to Voltaire, to Jesus Christ himself.

Defamation is tough to fight back against

The problem is defamation is a millionaire’s sport, and we don’t have a functioning enough mainstream press to hold demagogues to account, let alone adequately convey the consensus among academic researchers of the empirically-determined causes of terrorism and political violence (spoiler alert: ideology isn’t one of them; it is incidental, not causative).

As a result, it’s easy for us citizens to get swept up in the national security fervour and acquiesce into giving the political classes more and more arbitrary powers to restrict our activities. But remember this: 'extremism' is NOT about terrorists, murderers, or other bogeymen used to sell a policy.

When someone carries out an act of terrorism or political violence, when someone murders, destroys public property, or even engages in hate speech, they are not prosecuted under any 'anti-extremism' (or even anti-terrorism) legislation. They are prosecuted under existing (sometimes centuries-old) legislation.

That is why the likes of even the government’s appointed independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Max Hill KC suggested that terrorism legislation ought to be scrapped.

More speech, not less!

Not only is our resistance to so-called 'anti-extremism' discourse good for all of our civil liberties, but researchers routinely warn us that the presence of so-called non-violent 'extremism' also makes us safer.

However much we dislike deplorable opinions, we are all better off when they stay as speech and opinions, that can be openly discussed, argued, and rebutted.

History shows us that if you want to reduce the likelihood of some overzealous fanatics turning to violence, you need to give them a non-violent outlet. It is precisely when so-called 'radical' or 'extreme' groups experience state-suppression that some voices from within them succeed in convincing people to choose the bullet over the ballot box.

In other words, if you want to stop violence, the worst thing you can do is ban non-violence. The cure to bad speech is more speech, not less.