In the UK, who defines what extremism is? [THE NATIONAL]

May 14, 2015

The clear cut victory of the Conservatives in last week’s UK election meant that, unlike those predictions that had suggested a hung parliament, there was no delay in forming a new government.

There are now, however, two new legal problems of great concern: the nature of Britain’s continued commitment to the European Court of Human Rights, and the British concept of extremism.

Michael Gove, the new justice minister, has made no secret of his distaste for the existing Human Rights Act (HRA), which codifies the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law. The new government will try to replace it with a Bill of Rights.

At the root of the attempt to remove the HRA is the belief it gives the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) supremacy over British courts.

The reality is that the ECHR must be responded to by British judges – because the UK signed a European wide treaty on human rights in 1953. The only way out of it would mean withdrawing from the Council of Europe, which has more members than even the EU itself.

Is the point behind this particular political move merely to give the impression that English nationalism (and it would be specifically English nationalism, as Scottish parliamentarians have made it clear they oppose the repeal of the Human Rights Act) has gained a victory over European impingement on national issues?

Perhaps, particularly given that more than three million Britons voted for the UK Independence Party in last week’s election. That may be a good way to demonstrate to that part of the electorate that their concerns can still be addressed in the context of the British parliament.

But that move comes at a high cost. The repeal of the HRA doesn’t mean the end of human rights in the UK – but it does make the pursuit of specific remedies much harder. If the UK government wants to avoid that, by simply forming a British Bill of Rights that contains the same provisions as the convention, but without mentioning the European Court at all, that might be a way out. It’s unclear, however, that any future Bill of Rights would actually be equal to the European Convention. On the contrary – it may be weaker.

That discussion happens at the same time as another controversial issue – the British government’s proposed intention to establish a new extremism strategy.

In theory, there ought not to be any problem with such a strategy – if the terms and understanding of extremism are clear. Ideologies and ideas that are extreme ought to be challenged – that should be a given. The two fundamental questions, however, have yet to be answered convincingly: what is extremism and who should be challenging it?

When it comes to the first question, it’s unclear as to whether or not there is a consensus on the answer among the Conservatives, let alone across the country as a whole. That kind of national dialogue remains absent – and it seems that it would be well advised to have it take place sooner rather than later.

Secondly, even after the concept of extremism is understood, the question then arises of who is really best equipped and should be responsible for tackling it? It is very often the case that the state damages attempts in this arena, rather than empowering such efforts.

There will be fields where government is far more capable – and certainly where crimes have been committed, the state ought not to leave society to fend for itself. But if there is a case to be made that new legislation is required, as opposed to more effectively implementing existing legislation, it hasn’t yet been made convincingly.

During the five years of coalition government, it was often argued the Liberal Democrats played a restraining role on the Conservatives within the coalition. Some secretly suspected they provided cover for David Cameron’s own more liberal tendencies as compared to the rest of his party.

If the Tories wish to prove that was unnecessary, they could do worse than to ensure movement on these two crucial policy points are made in the right direction – which should be to strengthen commitment to fundamental rights, with clear definitions.

Dr HA Hellyer is an associate fellow in International Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London, and the Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC

On Twitter: @hahellyer

Source: The National

Photo Credit: PressTV.com