In the
papers today we read about David Cameron's new
plans for counter-extremism:
"The Prime minister will announce a counter-terrorism
bill including plans to restrict harmful actions of those seeking to radicalise
young people. The policies include disruption orders to prevent extremists
airing their views in public or radicalising young people, new powers to close
premises such as mosques where extremists are seeking to build influence, and
extra immigration restrictions for those thought to be preaching extremist views."
No no no,
this is a terrible idea. While I'm all for coming down hard on Islamic
extremism, this legislation will unleash an unwanted genie from the bottle - not
just because it encroaches on people's free speech, but primarily because it involves
backward reasoning that will probably make the problem it is trying to solve
even worse.
Here's why.
Generally speaking, you’re likely to reduce speeding by introducing speed
cameras; you’re likely to reduce street crime by introducing CCTV; and you’re likely
to reduce the chances of being burgled by getting a burglar alarm. What you are
not likely to reduce by legislating against Islamic radicalisation is Islamic radicalisation
- you are only likely to take it into even more secretive, private and harder
to detect places.
The most
dangerous Muslim fundamentalists are obsessed with the total and unchallengeable
absoluteness of Islam - they are not going to let something comparably trivial
like British legislation curb their ambitions - they will only be more likely
to attempt to propagate their dangerous and fanatical influence from the subtle
underbelly of society, underneath the radar of the authorities.
It's not
that the idea of restricting pernicious radicalisation and dangerous extremism is
an unworthy one, it's simply that it will make things worse - it will make many
more young Muslims feel averse to the British establishment and increase their
chances of being ripe for extremism, and it will remove many fundamentalist activities
from where they can be observably checked.
The law is an
effective deterrent only by preventing easily preventable activities. Islamic fundamentalism
is not an easily preventable activity because its exponents consider it to be
more valid than human laws. The best way to reduce the damaging effects of
radical Islamic fundamentalism is not to prevent extremists from airing their
views in public or repudiate the 'passive tolerance' we've come to enjoy - it
is to leave untouched the liberty of free expression, and lock up those who end
up committing criminal activities in the name of religious extremism.
Even that
doesn't wholly get to the crux of the issue though - which is that words like
'extremism' and 'radicalisation' are nigh-on impossible to legislate against in
any sense of hoping for pre-emption, because they are not objectively
measurable states - they are subjective and part of a broad spectrum of viewpoint
and behaviour. That simple truth gives
us another reason why it's much better to afford people the freedom to believe
and express whatever they want, and enforce the law when their freedom of
belief and expression turns into a criminal activity that harms individuals in
the society in which they live.
