The delicate balance in policing extremism | 在打击极端主义方面的微妙平衡 - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT英语电台

The delicate balance in policing extremism
在打击极端主义方面的微妙平衡

UK government guidelines carry risks for free speech and legitimate protest
英国政府的指导方针对言论自由和合法抗议存在风险。
00:00

undefined

The most fundamental duty of any state is to keep its citizens safe, from external or internal threats, but also from the state itself. This balancing act challenges all liberal democratic states.

Counterterrorism legislation exists to curb violent actions or threats by political, religious or ideologically-driven groups aimed at intimidating citizens and governments. Yet there are groups that propagate extreme ideologies, which may seek to replace liberal democracy with their own alternatives, but which stop short of committing or encouraging acts of terrorism.

In the UK, a lacuna exists between its hate speech and counterterrorism laws in which such groups cannot only operate but receive public funding. This gap is one the Conservative government is attempting to fill with a new definition of extremism. Some senior politicians and religious leaders have warned that the attempt could restrain free speech and ensnare legitimate organisations. This debate has echoes elsewhere.

German politics has been rocked by revelations about the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. A fifth of the party’s parliamentary employees have either been named as extremists by intelligence services or were members of designated extremist organisations, according to a TV probe. Some people believe the AfD should itself be declared a proscribed group. The question illustrates the dilemmas facing liberal democracies. Many AfD members hold beliefs incompatible with the values set out in Germany’s constitution. Yet banning a party supported by a fifth of voters is, in itself, hard to reconcile with the values of a liberal democracy.

France, meanwhile, has pursued “anti-separatist” policies aimed largely at curbing Islamist extremism. Their effectiveness at tackling radicalisation is uncertain, although critics argue they stigmatise Muslim citizens and worsen social division.

Violent extremism in the UK could be from both Islamist and neo-Nazi groups. The government’s guidelines are being unveiled against a backdrop of tensions in society over the Israel-Hamas conflict, with weekly pro-Palestinian protests and recent increases in both antisemitic incidents and anti-Muslim hate cases. 

Seeking to prevent extremist groups from engaging with public authorities and receiving public funds is laudable, but the execution is less so. The government’s motives are not solely electoral, and have as much to do with the determination of Michael Gove, the communities secretary, to drive through changes before an election his party is likely to lose. Seeking to restrict certain groups and speakers, including those courts have found to be jihadist sympathisers, is a positive step. Yet the Conservatives are ill-placed to deliver an enduring change to how the UK defines extremism, given their own recent inability to plainly identify explicit racism in their own ranks.

While the government is right to be worried about the inspiration of violent attacks, the expanded definition of extremism does risk having chilling effects for free speech. It extends the reach of “extremism” to include anyone who seeks to “negate” the fundamental rights of others. Despite assurances to the contrary from Gove, this is a definition that both sides of the debate over trans rights would argue includes their opponents — neither of which are a concern for the security services.

More broadly, the new definition contributes to a troubling expansion of what constitutes harmful extremism away from physical acts and straightforward incitement towards ideology and sets of beliefs. In striking the difficult balance between freedom and safety, governments should err on the side of free expression and the right to dissent.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

你是否应该在股指创新高时买入?

这感觉很不对,但投资者(包括我)不必太担心。

詹姆斯•克莱弗利:“我一直说没有多少选票可以玩……”

这位政治家首次谈到他是如何在一夜之间从保守党领袖竞选的领先者意外地获得第三名的。

一周新闻小测:2024年11月2日

您对本周的全球重大新闻了解如何?来做个小测试吧!

美国大选的第二天会发生什么?

历史上最紧张的总统竞选之一可能不会在晚上结束,随后可能会出现多重危机。

唐纳德•特朗普说利兹•切尼是“战争鹰派”,应该“被枪指着”

共和党候选人对政治对手的措辞引发新争论。

孟加拉国的意外革命者:一名84岁的老人和一些学生

年轻的抗议者推举诺贝尔奖得主尤努斯担任看守领导人。但改革国家民主体制的时间已经不多了。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×