The Thin Line: Redefining Extremism and the Assault on Free Speech
Unraveling the Ambiguity: How New Definitions Threaten the Fabric of Democracy
It's been a busy day so far, yet there is so much more to be done, and I suspect it's going to be a heated one. Perhaps I should try not to get too heated lest I be branded an "extremist."
Because yes, the much-awaited new definition of "extremism" has just dropped, and I'll be honest, I find it about as appealing and mind-numbingly confusing as a Hanson cover band singing 17 different versions of 'MMMbop'.
This morning, the illustrious and most slithery of them all, Mr Michael Gove , has unfurled his latest linguistic monstrosity, presenting a "new" definition of extremism that’s as clear as any river you dare look into in this country these days. Mr Gove's new definition is exceptionally vague, purposefully ambiguous and a clear and present danger which needs to be shut down. Immediately.
Let's dissect this new definition, shall we?
“Extremism", Mr Gove declares from atop his ivory towers of obfuscation and duplicity in what I can only assume is some awful put-on accent, is now any ideology that dances too close to violence, hatred, or intolerance. The definition is as broad as the horizon, positively a playground for subjective interpretation.
The full frontal assault on free speech is not just alarming - it’s a blaring fire alarm in a library of those rights we hold so dearly when it comes to freedom of speech and expression. This definition could very well turn any dissent into a high-wire act without a net, where even a misplaced word against governmental ineptitude we see on a day-to-day basis risks branding you with the scarlet 'E' of extremism. Speak out against the powers that be? Oh, darling, that's so perilously passé.
Diving deeper into the murky waters of this new "extremism" definition, Beelzebub, as they say, is in the detail - or in this case, the worrying lack thereof. The ambiguity of this definition isn’t just a matter of poor wording; it's handing a loaded gun handed to those in power, with the safety off and pointed squarely at the heart of free expression.
The Power of Words
Consider the chameleon-like nature of words like "violence," "hatred," and "intolerance." In the hands of a judicious and fair-minded arbiter, perhaps they could be applied with precision. But history hasn’t been kind enough to gift us with an unbroken line of such arbiters. Instead, we find ourselves at the mercy of a shifting landscape where today’s dissent could be tomorrow’s "extremism," all thanks to the whims of political winds.
The real casualties of this ambiguity are the minority voices and the activists - the very individuals and groups who have historically relied on the robust protections of free speech to challenge injustices and advocate for change. These are the voices that have pushed our society to evolve, to reconsider outdated norms and to embrace a more inclusive understanding of humanity. Under the shadow of this new definition, their advocacy could be stifled, their protests deemed too close to the ill-defined edge of "extremist" behavior.
The danger here isn’t just theoretical. Consider environmental activists, who, in sounding the alarm on climate change, often find themselves in opposition to powerful, entrenched interests, and in the United Kingdom, now find themselves regularly arrested and detained. With such a nebulous definition of extremism, could their demonstrations be classified as "creating a permissive environment" for undermining the state, simply because they challenge the status quo? Or what of racial justice advocates, whose urgent calls for systemic change might be misconstrued as attempts to "overturn" the UK's system of governance?
This isn’t about protecting the public from genuine threats; it’s about silencing uncomfortable truths. It’s about painting the passionate plea for a healthier planet or a more equitable society as dangerous, not because it poses any real threat to our safety, but because it threatens the comfort of those in power.
This concern in our current climate isn’t merely academic; it’s a pressing issue that touches on the very fabric of democratic engagement. If we allow the terms of our discourse to be so broadly defined that they can be weaponized against those advocating for progress, we risk not only the silencing of these crucial voices but the very principles of democracy itself. In a world where the line between "extremism" and passionate advocacy is drawn in the shifting sands of political convenience, we must ask ourselves: who benefits from such ambiguity, and at what cost to our collective freedom?
Who is making the decisions about what is and is not "extremism"?
This brings us on to a pivotal question, specifically who, in the name of Orwell, has been anointed the grand inquisitor of ideological purity? Who decides what shades of opinion are too dark to fit within their rainbow of acceptable thought? Well, that would be our very own Home Secretary, a man who jokes about date rape and the very self-same Michael Gove, a man about as trustworthy as a fart during a bout of diarrhoea.
To the before mentioned activists, minority voices and champions of change, all those people who go out on the streets and demand to be heard - yup, you're now suddenly navigating a minefield with a blindfold. Your advocacy once celebrated as the lifeblood of democracy, could now, at the whim of Mr Gove and Cleverly, be construed as the machinations of extremism. The government's message is crystal: toe the line, or you might just find yourself on the wrong side of our ever-expanding grey area.
Let’s cut to the heart of the matter: This isn’t about protecting us; it’s about controlling the narrative, about muffling the voices of dissent under the guise of national security. They’re not just drawing lines in the sand; they’re carving trenches in the bedrock of our rights to freedom of expression and speech.
The Littered History of Silencing Dissent
As ever, I'm not going to pussyfoot around this, nor dabble in gentle hypotheticals; history's dark corridors echo with the tales of "extremism" turned into a monstrous cudgel, wielded with the grace of a drunken sailor against dissent's fragile skull. Let's cast our minds back to the McCarthy era in the United States, a time when simply whispering "communism" was akin to instantly summoning bogeyman in a floppy suit. This particular era's witch hunts, fueled by the nebulous terror of "anti-American activities," turned careers to dust and made pariahs of the innocent - a harrowing testament to the weaponization of vague terminologies.
Now, hopping back to our own backyard, let's consider the UK's Prevent strategy. Launched with the noble intention of thwarting terrorism, it's since spiraled into a behemoth eyeing environmental crusaders and even the odd outspoken teenager with undue and sometimes malicious suspicion. The audacity to flag a green-thumbed activist or a politically curious student under this strategy is a glaring red flag, signaling a descent down a slippery slope where voicing concern for our planet or even daring to question authority in a classroom suddenly smacks of subversion. The implementation of the Prevent strategy has been, very rightly, criticised by multiple human rights organisations, and the outcomes have been stark - nearly 89% of referrals have been found to need no further action.
We also can't overlook the 2019 uproar in Hong Kong, where "extremism" was the label slapped onto pro-democracy protestors with a carelessness that would make Orwell facepalm. Painting these cries for democracy with the broad, damning strokes of extremism not only smeared the legitimacy of their demands but also greased the wheels for a crackdown that clamped down on freedoms like a bear trap, serving as a chilling reminder of how dangerously elastic these definitions can be on the global stage.
These instances aren't just chapters from history's cautionary guide of "Please Don't Do This, It Never Ends Well"; they're shrieking sirens, desperately warning us of the peril when "extremism" is left as undefined as a politician's promises. This tactic, as old as tyranny itself, morphs political adversaries, activists, and Joe Public into bogeymen du jour, gnawing at democracy's very foundations. It freezes free speech in its tracks and strangles the dynamic exchange of ideas, the very lifeblood of societal evolution.
So, when we talk about the new definition of extremism, let’s be crystal clear: We're not jousting with windmills here. We're spotlighting a tried-and-tested method of muzzling, stifling and silencing dissent, a tool as dangerous in its vagueness as it is in its potential to silence. It's a battle cry for all who cherish democratic discourse to stand firm, lest we find ourselves ensnared in the same traps that history, in its infinite wisdom, has repeatedly warned us against.
Now, am I saying that there should be no definition of extremism? Of course not. But is this Conservative government, parts of which that are not so subtly promoting us to leave the ECHR, that integral institution which provides the laws that underpin our very own Human Rights Act, the right group of people to do so? Quite honestly, I would trust a sack of angry vipers more to write definitions that have a direct impact on the freedom to protest and to express yourself.
A Game of Doubt and Second Guessing
On a deeply personal level, this entire debacle leaves me not just slightly worried but genuinely concerned. Those of you who’ve journeyed through (and sometimes endured) the tangled thicket of my posts will know all too well that I’ve never danced delicately around the issues. Criticising this government for their myriad of performances that range from the tragically comical to the downright dangerous, their missteps that feel more like a choreographed routine of incompetence, their utter neglect of duty, and the clear and present dangers they seem to perpetually pose to the fabric of this country - that’s my bread and butter. I’ve thrown these critiques like Molotov cocktails with a passion and a fervour that burns from the very core of my being.
Yet now, with the shadow of this new definition looming over us all like an ominous storm cloud, I find myself in a position I never thought I’d be - second-guessing myself. Is the act of putting pen to paper, or in our digital age, claws to keys, in passionate dissent, now a tightrope walk over the chasm of being branded an “extremist”? The very notion is enough to send a chill down the spine of anyone who holds dear the values of free speech and open debate.
But, very importantly this isn’t just about me - I am but one minnow among thousands; it’s a clarion call to all voices, loud and soft, that have dared to stand against the tide of governmental folly. Are we now meant to muzzle ourselves, to temper our truths for fear of retribution under the guise of combating "extremism"? The very thought is anathema to everything I, and so many of you, stand for. Yet, here we find ourselves, on the 14th of March 2024, faced with the very real possibility that our vigorous, passionate and sometimes powerful critique could inadvertently paint targets on our backs, leaving us self-censoring and jus that little bit more quiet than we were.
It’s an absurdly ludicrous scenario that reads like a dystopian satire, yet the ink is drying on the page of reality. To question, to challenge, to demand better of those who lead us - these are not the actions of extremists; they are the hallmarks of a vibrant democracy. And if these are the criteria for "extremism", then we must ask ourselves what has become of our democratic ideals.
Where to from here?
As we stand at the crossroads, facing down the gaping maw of sanctioned silence, it’s imperative we grasp the gravity of what’s at stake. This battle isn’t confined to the pages of policy documents or the echo chambers of political debates; it’s etched in the very soul of our democracy. The new definition of "extremism" is more than a bureaucratic blunder; it’s a harbinger of a world where the vibrancy of discourse is dimmed by the shadow of fear, where the tapestry of our society is bleached to a uniform shade of compliance.
We must not let this stand. This is a clarion call to arms, to words, to action. To defend not just the right to speak, but the very foundation upon which our democratic ideals are built. Let us wield our voices with the might of warriors in the arena of ideas, for if we yield now, we do so not just to a definition but to the erosion of the bedrock of our freedoms.
In the end, the question isn’t whether we can afford to challenge this definition of extremism but whether we can afford not to. The writing of this post, the sharing of these thoughts, and the sparking of this debate are not acts of extremism but a testament to the resilience of democracy. Let's not be branded as extremists for our passion but celebrated as champions of the principles that have long defined us.
Together, we stand on the brink, not of extremism, but of a defining moment in our history. How we respond will echo not just in the annals of our time but in the legacy we leave for generations to come. Let’s ensure it’s a legacy of courage, freedom, and unyielding commitment to the ideals that unite us.