Khalil Charles questions whether the UK Government’s new counter-extremism measures are lawful.
The UK Prime Minister’s attack on non-violent extremism is widely being regarded as an attack on the freedom to ‘think differently,’ but any new legislation proposed in this autumn’s strategy could run the risk of breaching European law.
Critics say that Cameron’s new 5-year counter-extremism strategy is an attempt to remove Islam out of the equation of British life and to stifle legitimate debate. Central to his counter-extremism policy is an appeal to the media to provide a platform for ‘moderate’ Muslim voices; a move that is widely regarded as the need to perpetuate the idea that acceptable Islamic religious people are those who are pastorally nice, softly spoken, modern and non-controversial. Some argue that his policies set up a ‘good’ Muslim — ‘bad’ Muslim scenario.
His recent speech made repeated references to ‘conspiracy theories,’ which appears to be the chosen path to undermine any assertions that foreign policy or the harassment of the Intelligence Service have had a part to play in the radicalisation of young Muslims. A claim made by a British charity CAGE, which defends the rights of Muslim prisoners suspected of terrorism or imprisoned aboard or victims of ex-judiciary rendition. The Charity was mentioned by name by the Prime Minster for the charity’s reference to an ISIS executioner, known as Jihadi John, as a ‘beautiful young man.’
Cameron unveiled, what he called, his strongest weapon against extremism and terrorists ‘liberal values,’ and promptly declared that anyone opposed to those liberal values like freedom of speech, democracy, rule of law, equality regardless of race, gender and sexuality would be the target in the new legislation even if they did not support the use of violence.
However, the new laws run the risk of violating European Law. Article 10 of the European Human rights convention states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by pubic authority…”
The act does not give governments that right to curtail freedoms unless in cases where national security, territorial integrity, public safety, prevention of disorder, reputation and rights of others or where the authority and impartially of the judiciary may be affected. European courts have stated in past judgments that restrictions on freedom of expression must be for a ‘pressing social’ needs or any interference of that right will have contravened the convention.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
The Prime Minister will be under some pressure to produce a bill that deals with what he describes as a ‘poisonous Islamic extremism,’ which underpins violent extremism and terrorism. Despite his admission that combatting the threat is ‘not just’ about introducing new laws, Cameron’s difficulty is to clearly define the boundaries of this type of extremism and to outline at what point such views go against the law, given that schools, internet providers and prisons will be under obligation to reports signs of radicalisation.
In his speech, the Prime Minster states that the strategy is not ‘about clamping down on free speech,’ but the new policy appears to include an increase banning orders and a directive to certain organisation not to associate with ‘extremist’ but legally registered charities as a means of isolating those and cutting off their sources of income. This week the prisoner’s charity Cage issued lawsuits against Cameroon for his labelling the organisation as ‘extreme’ and separate legal action has been issued against the Charities commission for overstepping it legal remit.
To some Cameron appears to be setting a dangerous unprecedented tone that places not just extremist, but practicing ordinary Muslim under the spotlight. The fear ordinary conservative Muslim will be targeted and this could lead to the detention for non-violence critics of the government’s policy.
Many fear this could lead to growing tension and reprisals against Muslims not just in the UK, but also across Europe. 20 years after the hatred of Muslims throughout Europe was highlighted in the findings of the Runnymede Commission in the United Kingdom, which examined the “growing phenomenon of Islamophobia-dread or hatred of Muslims,” there are fears that the new strategy will lead to an increase in the problem.
According to Runnymede, Islamophobia includes “the portrayal of Muslim cultures as monolithic, intolerant of pluralism and dispute, patriarchal and misogynistic, fundamentalist and potentially threatening to other cultures. A further, and particularly disturbing feature of Islamophobia is its apparent acceptability as…’the expression of anti-Muslim ideas and sentiments is increasingly respectable.’”
Some have described Cameron’s speech within those boundaries and condemn his references to female genital mutilation, forced marriages and anti-Semitism, which appear to stray from the central objective of the strategy against terrorism, but place Muslims into a monolithic culture.
Nevertheless, although challenges to any counter extremism laws could become a politically sensitive issue in the UK and throughout Europe, Muslims will be aware the European Courts in July 2014 upheld the French ban on the hijab which was imposed in France and subsequently in Belgium. The hope is that measures to clamp down on non-violent non-hateful speech might well be rejected by Europeans highest court, but there are no guarantees!
Khalil Charles is a former BBC journalist and TV producer. He worked for BBC One Documentary Features in the 1990s and presented a chat show on BBC2. Khalil has also presented on BBC Radio 4. In the early 2000s, Khalil was the Chief Editor on an English language daily newspaper in Sudan. He has degrees in Arabic, English Literature, Philosophy and Psychology, and currently completing his Masters in Islamic Studies.
@khalilcharles
