Ciarán Kelly is Director of the Christian Institute a non-denominational registered charity which seeks to promote the Christian faith in the UK.
There is a strange sense of déjà vu about Dame Sara Khan’s intervention before Christmas on tackling extremism in the UK.
The headlines may have focused on worries over conspiracy theories and extreme misogyny, but a closer look at Societal Threats and Declining Democratic Resilience: The New Extremism Landscape, reveals a misplaced nostalgia for that bane of free speech: the Extremism Disruption Order (EDO).
Announced as part of the 2015 Counter Extremism Strategy, these new powers were aimed at “harmful activities of extremist individuals who spread hate but do not break laws”. The closest thing to a definition was: someone “participating in activities that spread, incite, promote or justify hatred against a person (or group of persons) on the grounds of that person’s (or group of persons’) disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, and/or transgender identity”.
To be clear, the former counter-extremism commissioner and social cohesion advisor does not mention EDOs by name. Rather Khan pleads for new powers or legislation “to address persistent extremist groups and individuals which are considered harmful”. But ‘harm’ is now a weaponised term. Even the most mainstream ideas are often maligned as ‘harmful’ by people intent on silencing those ideas. So Khan is adopting a worryingly vague threshold.
She says: “Overall, it remains unclear whether the Home Office has fully understood the significance of the gaps in current legislation and the impact of these on the ability of organisations to tackle extremist individuals and organisations whose activities create a climate conducive to violence and terrorism, but are currently lawful” (emphasis added). In a world where the slogan “silence is violence” is taken seriously, should the Government get to decide if your ‘lawful activities’ are ‘creating a climate conducive to violence’?
This is the same mindset that gave rise to EDOs ten years ago. The intention was to gag anyone deemed to have contravened the Government’s definition of ‘British values’. It was to be the basis of a new speech crime.
It is the mindset that still champions a crackdown on online content that, though entirely legal, is felt by some to be ‘harmful’. Indeed the report notes: “Concerns have also been raised that ‘lawful but harmful’ hateful extremism will not be adequately addressed by the Online Safety Act.” Plans to require tech firms to block lawful speech of this kind were only dropped by the last Government following an outcry from free speech advocates, who saw it could lead to damaging limitations on legitimate debate.
It was a move that upset some in the present government, a government that has gone on to neuter a law protecting free speech in universities, and that is seeking to expand the already highly controversial use of non-crime hate incidents.
But why should we be concerned? After all, as law-abiding citizens we oppose violence and terrorism. If the police and authorities need more powers to stop acts of violence or terror then they should have them. Of course this is right. The key point here is if they need them. The Home Office under the previous government said they don’t need them, Police already have the powers to arrest those who incite violence or racial hatred.
We should be concerned because we have been here before. Whether it is Tony Blair’s notorious ‘religious hatred’ bill, laws against being ‘insulting’ or ‘annoying’, or EDOs, the recurring issue is overly broad drafting leading to unintended consequences. We might all agree that certain bad speech needs to be stopped, but without precise wording innocent speech is caught too.
Rather than revisiting the grossly misguided attempts of the past to censor views that are merely controversial, unpopular, or that cause offence, the authorities need to make better use of the vast arsenal of laws already at their disposal to tackle genuinely dangerous speech. Ordinary people should not be put at risk of being caught by vague terminology that threatens our historic liberties.
More than 20 years on, we come back to Lord Justice Sedley’s seminal statement:
“Freedom of speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
Ciarán Kelly is Director of the Christian Institute a non-denominational registered charity which seeks to promote the Christian faith in the UK.
There is a strange sense of déjà vu about Dame Sara Khan’s intervention before Christmas on tackling extremism in the UK.
The headlines may have focused on worries over conspiracy theories and extreme misogyny, but a closer look at Societal Threats and Declining Democratic Resilience: The New Extremism Landscape, reveals a misplaced nostalgia for that bane of free speech: the Extremism Disruption Order (EDO).
Announced as part of the 2015 Counter Extremism Strategy, these new powers were aimed at “harmful activities of extremist individuals who spread hate but do not break laws”. The closest thing to a definition was: someone “participating in activities that spread, incite, promote or justify hatred against a person (or group of persons) on the grounds of that person’s (or group of persons’) disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, and/or transgender identity”.
To be clear, the former counter-extremism commissioner and social cohesion advisor does not mention EDOs by name. Rather Khan pleads for new powers or legislation “to address persistent extremist groups and individuals which are considered harmful”. But ‘harm’ is now a weaponised term. Even the most mainstream ideas are often maligned as ‘harmful’ by people intent on silencing those ideas. So Khan is adopting a worryingly vague threshold.
She says: “Overall, it remains unclear whether the Home Office has fully understood the significance of the gaps in current legislation and the impact of these on the ability of organisations to tackle extremist individuals and organisations whose activities create a climate conducive to violence and terrorism, but are currently lawful” (emphasis added). In a world where the slogan “silence is violence” is taken seriously, should the Government get to decide if your ‘lawful activities’ are ‘creating a climate conducive to violence’?
This is the same mindset that gave rise to EDOs ten years ago. The intention was to gag anyone deemed to have contravened the Government’s definition of ‘British values’. It was to be the basis of a new speech crime.
It is the mindset that still champions a crackdown on online content that, though entirely legal, is felt by some to be ‘harmful’. Indeed the report notes: “Concerns have also been raised that ‘lawful but harmful’ hateful extremism will not be adequately addressed by the Online Safety Act.” Plans to require tech firms to block lawful speech of this kind were only dropped by the last Government following an outcry from free speech advocates, who saw it could lead to damaging limitations on legitimate debate.
It was a move that upset some in the present government, a government that has gone on to neuter a law protecting free speech in universities, and that is seeking to expand the already highly controversial use of non-crime hate incidents.
But why should we be concerned? After all, as law-abiding citizens we oppose violence and terrorism. If the police and authorities need more powers to stop acts of violence or terror then they should have them. Of course this is right. The key point here is if they need them. The Home Office under the previous government said they don’t need them, Police already have the powers to arrest those who incite violence or racial hatred.
We should be concerned because we have been here before. Whether it is Tony Blair’s notorious ‘religious hatred’ bill, laws against being ‘insulting’ or ‘annoying’, or EDOs, the recurring issue is overly broad drafting leading to unintended consequences. We might all agree that certain bad speech needs to be stopped, but without precise wording innocent speech is caught too.
Rather than revisiting the grossly misguided attempts of the past to censor views that are merely controversial, unpopular, or that cause offence, the authorities need to make better use of the vast arsenal of laws already at their disposal to tackle genuinely dangerous speech. Ordinary people should not be put at risk of being caught by vague terminology that threatens our historic liberties.
More than 20 years on, we come back to Lord Justice Sedley’s seminal statement:
“Freedom of speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”