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

Communities secretary Michael Gove. The government’s new guidelines contribute to a troubling expansion of what constitutes harmful extremism away from physical acts towards sets of beliefs

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。

喝不起咖啡的巴西人把矛头指向总统卢拉

食品通胀正在影响拉丁美洲最大国家左翼领导人的支持率。

大批民众在葬礼上悼念黎巴嫩真主党领袖纳斯鲁拉

真主党为五个月前在以色列空袭中丧生的领导人举行葬礼,试图展示这个遭受到重创的运动的力量。

宝马暂停在牛津生产电动迷你车的6亿英镑投资计划

在本田、福特和捷豹路虎过去十年关闭英国工厂后,这家德国汽车制造商进行了审查。

一周展望:美联储首选的通胀指标是否会下降?

美国将公布个人消费支出指数;中国香港股市的上涨行情引发关注;欧洲股市的优异表现出人意料。

研究:数据中心相关污染在美国造成54亿美元公共卫生成本

最新研究结果凸显AI基础设施建设热潮带来的日益加剧的环境和健康影响。

全球毕业生面临就业的艰苦斗争

大学毕业生本应从劳动力市场的紧缩中受益。为什么仍有这么多人在找工作?
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×