The meaninglessness of “extremism”

JVL Introduction

The government has recently introduced a New definition of extremism to deal with the “the pervasiveness of extremist ideologies in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Israel on 7 October”.

But what does it mean by “extremism”: views that are merely beyond those held by the mainstream? A set of explicit beliefs? Or merely a blunt weapon to beat these those views it disagrees with.

The government claims to be dealing with the second, setting out criteria to “identify extremist organisations, individuals and behaviours”.

The argument developed here is that if these criteria are applied with any impartiality the government itself clearly emerges as “extreme”!

The conclusion can only be that for the government  “extremism” is really just a swear word, a weapon to demonise its critics – and all critics of a failing system…

RK

The Meaninglessness of ‘Extremism’

2nd April 2024

Liberal democracies have a remarkable tradition of revoking political rights as soon as those rights are used to organise vigorous challenges to the powerful. Small protests are seen as occasional annoyances, and safe to ignore; but massive, sustained opposition to the ruling class is an intolerable threat, to be repressed with police batons, draconian legislation, and slander. When a cause enjoys real popularity, and places itself in manifest opposition to the rulers, it is then that our hard-won liberties are paused, or repealed, or destroyed.

This is exactly the position we find ourselves in with regard to the British government’s support for Israel’s war of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The deliberate starvation of a people confined to a tiny strip of land, the vast majority of them now displaced, living in crowded and unsanitary conditions, and terrorised by relentless bombing, is a crime which appals the ordinary conscience. It is for this reason that thousands of people have assembled month after month, with undiminished energy, to demand that the British government end its complicity in these atrocities. Our rulers are rather unhappy with this application of democratic principles, and they have accordingly worked to defame the Palestine solidarity movement.

The latest governmental ploy is a new definition of ‘extremism’, to ‘identify extremist organisations, individuals and behaviours.’ Extremists are to be denied government meetings, funding, or engagement; this initiative was prompted by the ‘increased extremist threat’ since 7 October.

Extremism might be defined in a variety of ways. If its meaning is purely relative to whatever opinions predominate in a given society, rather than encompassing any specific beliefs, then it loses all force as a term of vituperation. In slave societies, the opinions of abolitionists began as those of a fringe minority, and were therefore judged to be extreme. Before universal suffrage was introduced and became a fundamental political principle in this country, its advocates were dismissed as Radicals and visionaries. The examples could be multiplied much further. If all fringe views are assumed to be extreme, then ‘extremist’ ceases to be a badge of disgrace, and may well become a badge of honour.

If extremism denotes specific beliefs—which is the sort of definition that the government has introduced—then the definition must be applied with complete impartiality. So long as there is evidence of extremist beliefs, there can be no excuse for refusing to apply the definition equally to all.

A third possibility is that there are no principles involved in defining extremism. It then becomes a mere term of abuse, designed to target opponents of the government. We intend to prove that this is the approach of the Sunak ministry. Any reasonable discussion of the term ‘extremism’, its usefulness, and its possible applications, we must postpone to some other time: fighting extremism is not the government’s concern.

The extremism definition now reads:

‘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).’

Now let us apply this definition with complete impartiality, and see what results.

Negating or destroying the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Nobody doubts that the right to life is fundamental; that human beings deserve the freedom not to be starved, or massacred, in acts of collective punishment or genocide. The facts of the situation in Gaza are as follows:

1. The International Court of Justice, the world’s highest judicial body, ruled in January that the accusation of genocide against Israel is plausible. The court cited UN officials who spoke of an unfolding catastrophe; it also cited the dehumanising remarks of Israeli leaders. Israel’s conduct has not changed since the ruling; it has continued to perpetrate atrocities.
2. UN officials and authoritative human rights organisations have together made dozens of statements condemning Israel’s conduct and the collective punishment of the population of Gaza. Israel has indiscriminately terrorised civilians with its bombs, and is now starving them.[1]
3. British ministers have aided and abetted Israel’s onslaught against Palestinians in the following ways: since 2015, the government has licenced over £470 million worth of arms to Israel, including parts for F-35 aircraft which have been deployed in Gaza; the military has flown at least fifty surveillance missions over Gaza to provide ‘surveillance support to Israel’; ‘military teams’ in Israel and the rest of the region have been ‘bolstered’ and cooperation with Israel ‘stepped up’; British funding for UNRWA, the main relief agency in Gaza, has been suspended; and the government has supported Israel diplomatically, including by vetoing, or abstaining on, ceasefire resolutions at the UN, and by attacking South Africa’s decision to hold Israel accountable at the ICJ.
4. Aiding and abetting war crimes is itself a crime under international and British law. ­­
5. Senior British politicians have been notified by lawyers that they will be prosecuted for their involvement in crimes against the population of Gaza. Evidence of the involvement of government officials in war crimes has been submitted to the Metropolitan Police, which is deciding whether to open a formal investigation. The government cannot plead ignorance.
6. Already in 2021 and 2022, reputable human rights organisations including B’Tselem, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch had concluded that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, a crime against humanity.

It irrefutably follows from these facts, that British government ministers have been directly involved in negating and destroying the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, namely the rights and freedoms of innocent Palestinians in Gaza. The conduct of these ministers is immeasurably worse than the conduct embraced by their own extremism definition, for they did not only ‘aim to’ negate or destroy these rights and freedoms: they have succeeded in their aim, and if the authority of the ICJ is to be respected, they are plausibly accomplices in the severest of international crimes. Is there a more appropriate use of the word extremist, than to describe those who would willingly participate in the mass destruction of a people?

But (a Tory, or Starmerite, urges), even if we concede that the government’s policy is wrong, it does not promote or advance ‘an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance’. Yet, by making arguments for its policy of supporting the destruction of Gaza, the government has, in fact, adopted such an ideology. And even if the government pretended to be moderate and humane, which it makes no great effort to do, its true beliefs stand exposed by its conduct: we do not think it would be any mitigation of the government’s extremism, if it supported Israel’s war crimes in the name of love and tolerance.

Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, has also supported the negation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of Palestinians. He explicitly affirmed Israel’s ‘right’ to cut off water and power to Palestinians in Gaza, and instead of retracting his remarks, he lied about them after public condemnation, claiming that he did not say the words he had said on national radio. If millions of innocent people have a fundamental right not to be punished by being denied water and power, it follows that Sir Keir, too, can justly be called an extremist.

On point (1) of the definition alone, the evidence here suffices to pin the label of extremist on members of the cabinet and shadow cabinet. We will deal with point (2) more briefly.

Undermining, overturning or replacing the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights. The Tory government, and the Blairite Labour government before them, have together been responsible for a general attack on civil liberties in this country. But we will limit ourselves to just these recent examples of the undermining of parliamentary democracy and democratic rights:

• According to nearly fifty organisations, among them Amnesty International UK, Liberty, and Oxfam, the government already operates ‘a chaotic patchwork of repressive legislation and policing powers that has placed undue restrictions on the right to protest’. The government intends to further expand these repressive powers.
• The government has colluded in the prosecution of Julian Assange by the United States, including by orchestrating his expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy in 2019, and by perpetuating his confinement in a high-security prison. Assange performed a great service to the world by publishing evidence of state crimes; his prolonged punishment is a warning to all people who might dare to do the same.
• Senior Labour Party MPs led by Sir Keir used underhanded methods to pressure the Speaker of the House of Commons to breach parliamentary convention—the aim being to promote the Labour Party’s interests. The Speaker capitulated; he was reportedly told that he would lose his position under a Labour government unless he bowed to their will.

On the matter of undermining parliamentary democracy and democratic rights, it seems, once more, that both government and opposition are extremists. And, after what we have said, it is obvious that these politicians have created a ‘permissive environment’ for their preferred forms of extremism, the substance of point (3) of the definition.

If we take the government’s extremism definition seriously, then, it reveals that our whole parliament is populated by extremists. And yet, the government does not consider itself to be extreme, or intend for this definition to apply to itself.

We conclude, therefore, that the word ‘extremist’, far from signifying any distinct beliefs, is nothing but a term of abuse. The purpose of this new extremism definition, consonant with the government’s antipathy to protest, is to vilify those who dissent, and to frighten the public with painted devils.

[1] Readers who wish to know the details of Israel’s conduct are advised to consult the recent report titled Anatomy of a Genocide, by Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories.