openDemocracyUK

New counter-extremism laws must not cut out spaces for dialogue

How do we address extremism in a way that does not impinge on civil liberties and exacerbate tensions in our communities?

Barry Navarro
18 May 2015
Theresa May re-elected, 2015

Theresa May re-elected, 2015. Demotix/ Mark Kerrison. All rights reserved.This year marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, commonly described as the foundation of the freedom of the individual and the protection of liberty, and often regarded as the cornerstone of “British values” of justice and fairness.

But today, debates on threats to civil liberty and justice rage on. Almost a decade after the attacks on London on July 7, 2005, the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and the emergence of the so-called Islamic State, the Muslim population in Britain has become the subject of intense scrutiny by the media, policy-makers and the wider public.

Still fresh from a General Election victory, the Government has announced a new programme to protect “British values”, alongside fresh measures to counter extremism.

These measures will include restrictions on those trying to radicalise young people and will give the police the power to apply to a high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of individual extremists. They will also give authorities the power to close premises, including mosques, if “extremists” are found to be influencing and inciting others, while giving new powers to the Charity Commission to stop inappropriate use of funds towards extremism and terrorism.

Fears of radicalisation and terrorism have already translated into concrete laws that test society’s notions of liberty. Take, for example, the PREVENT component of CONTEST, the UK government’s counter-terrorism strategy, and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The Act stops people travelling abroad if there are suspicions that they could be involved in terrorism. In theory, it requires the police, prisons, local authorities, schools and universities to have due regard for preventing people from being “drawn into terrorism” and asks each local authority to identify persons at risk of “radicalisation” and violent extremism, and take action to “de-radicalise” them.

However, there appears to be an increasing consensus amongst the Muslim and parts of the non-Muslim population that, despite placing PREVENT on a statutory footing, it is a “toxic brand”. They view it with suspicion, arguing that it has morphed from being a strategy of engagement into being one predominantly of enforcement. The use of terms such as “British values” by the Government also sheds light on how they are grappling with changing populations that have multiple identities, arguably creating a “with us or against us” scenario.

New proposals from the Government present an opportunity to examine if the current methods of countering violent extremism and radicalisation are working, or are actually preventing young people from speaking up without being labelled a “threat”. It could be possible they are doing both.

It is also an opportunity to examine if, as a society, we are in danger of confusing activism and the value of free speech with radicalisation. This confusion has resulted in the closing or limiting of spaces for dialogue, especially for those who seek to challenge the current securitisation agenda, and ironically those who seek to engage young people who are at risk of being drawn into violent extremism.

Whilst securitisation may be required in cases of imminent threats, if used too widely it can reinforce fears and increase the alienation that drives people to hold violent extremist views in the first place.

Such widespread use of securitisation alienates parts of the Muslim population who do not support terrorism or violent extremism, but view Government policy as discriminatory and hypocritical, particularly in light of the UK’s current and past foreign policies and practice.

Domestically, the use of surveillance and detention of suspects which does not result in arrests and convictions exacerbates the sense of alienation and distrust not just of the Muslim population.  There is also the wider question of the restriction on all of our civil liberties whereby schools, colleges and charities are feeling pressurised to comply with the securitisation agenda and curtail discussions, actions and projects.

What’s the answer?

How do we address extremism in a way that does not impinge on civil liberties and exacerbate tensions in our communities?

First, we must create more spaces for dialogue, enabling young people to quench their inquisitiveness around forms of extremist ideology, and equip communities and organisations to hold such discussion spaces.

Holding discussions that feature different perspectives could also provoke more thought on whether we should be talking less about “radicalisation” and “counter-extremism” and more about the “vulnerability” of young people and how we can best “safe-guard” their well-being. Building greater connections and understanding between Muslim and non-Muslims is also important.

In addition, we should increase our understanding of the complexity of issues of extremism, including its global dimensions, and the notions of identity and values.

And finally we may actually want to think about reclaiming the word “radicalisation” to include a positive interpretation. Radicalisation may positively benefit our society – surely there are not many better examples in UK history than the proposal of the Magna Carta itself.

Stop the secrecy: Publish the NHS COVID data deals


To: Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

We’re calling on you to immediately release details of the secret NHS data deals struck with private companies, to deliver the NHS COVID-19 datastore.

We, the public, deserve to know exactly how our personal information has been traded in this ‘unprecedented’ deal with US tech giants like Google, and firms linked to Donald Trump (Palantir) and Vote Leave (Faculty AI).

The COVID-19 datastore will hold private, personal information about every single one of us who relies on the NHS. We don’t want our personal data falling into the wrong hands.

And we don’t want private companies – many with poor reputations for protecting privacy – using it for their own commercial purposes, or to undermine the NHS.

The datastore could be an important tool in tackling the pandemic. But for it to be a success, the public has to be able to trust it.

Today, we urgently call on you to publish all the data-sharing agreements, data-impact assessments, and details of how the private companies stand to profit from their involvement.

The NHS is a precious public institution. Any involvement from private companies should be open to public scrutiny and debate. We need more transparency during this pandemic – not less.


By adding my name to this campaign, I authorise openDemocracy and Foxglove to keep me updated about their important work.

Who is bankrolling Britain's democracy? Which groups shape the stories we see in the press; which voices are silenced, and why? Sign up here to find out.

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData