MRS MAY’S PLAN TO DEFEAT TERRORISM IN BRITAIN.

On 12 January 2015, the day of the Paris terrorist attacks, Mr Ahmed Aboutaleb, himself a Muslim, a former government minister and the Mayor of Amsterdam made an admirably concise broadcast.

“It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom.  But if you do not like freedom, in Heaven’s name pack your bag and leave….There may be a place in the world where you can be yourself.  Be honest with yourself and do not go and kill innocent journalists.  And if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can f**** off”

On 23 March 2015 the Home Secretary gave a somewhat longer speech entitled “A Stronger Britain, Built On Our Values” which included the same sentiment but its focus was different.  Mrs May addressed the question ‘what we will need to do to defeat extremism in Britain’[1].  Her speech merits reading in full.

Mrs May deserves credit for daring to name the Elephant in the room but her remedy (the promotion of ‘British Values’) is insufficient.  I shall also contend that some of the Government’s terminology is unfortunate, and may prove counterproductive whilst other parts of the speech lapsed into meaningless rhetoric.

“Patriotism is not enough…” said Nurse Edith Cavell on 11^th October 1915 the night before her execution by German firing squad for assisting allied troops to escape occupied Belgium.[2]  Similarly ‘British Values’, admirable though they are, are not enough for the reasons I shall explain below.

Credit for naming the Elephant.

Mrs May drew attention the evidence of the rise of extremism in Britain such as the Trojan Horse plot to take over state schools in Birmingham and the increasing number of anti-Semitic attacks in Britain which more than doubled in the last year.  She had the courage to declare “it is obvious from the evidence that the most serious and widespread form of extremism we need to confront is Islamist extremism”.  Obvious or not, it was courageous to say this because it risks being mis-interpreted as a criticism of Islam in general;  something that Mrs May did her best to avoid by spelling out the difference in clear terms[3].

Mrs May insists that Islamist extremists must, be ‘tackled head on’.

Mrs May’s solution: a partnership based on ‘British Values’.

“… the foundation stone of our new strategy [for combating extremism] is the proud promotion of British values.

These values – such as regard for the rule of law, participation in and acceptance of democracy, equality, free speech and respect for minorities – are supported by the overwhelming majority of British people. ….

…we want to form a new partnership – a partnership consisting of every single person and organisation in our country that wants to defeat the extremists.

Government cannot act alone. Individual people, families and whole communities need help and those of you fighting the extremists deserve our support.  So my invitation is clear – come and join that partnership. If you join us, we will do everything we can to help you. We will help you to stand up to the extremists by denying them the opportunity to spread their messages of hate and division.”

A meaningless call to ‘Partnership’.

When Mrs May invites us to ‘join this new partnership’ it is not clear what she has in mind.  It conjures up images of a long, orderly and polite queue (very British) at a post office for a document headed ‘British Values Partnership: subscription form’.

According to the philosopher John Locke society is founded upon an implied contract between the governed and the Government under which free people give up their freedom and agree to be ruled by the Government for the purpose of ‘the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates’.  It is assumed that all who have the benefit of the government’s protection consent to this contract.  Mrs May’s reference to ‘partnership’ may perhaps be an echo of this idea.  In the absence of any explanation the invitation to join the partnership seems like empty rhetoric.

‘British Values’: a curious terminology apt to confuse the issues.

‘Regard for the rule of law’, ‘participation in and acceptance of democracy’, ‘equality’, ‘free speech’ and ‘respect for minorities’: these are all admirable things but lumping them together and calling them ‘British Values’ is curious use of language.  I become wary when I notice that a government department has found it necessary to distort ordinary language to make a point.

No one can seriously suggest that the concept of ‘rule of law’ as it applies today is uniquely British.  Likewise ‘democracy’, ‘free speech’ and ‘respect for minorities’.  From a historical perspective at various times in the history of Britain each of these principles has been ‘more honoured in the breach than in the observance[4]’.  Therefore to define them as ‘British Values’ is odd.

More significantly, it is very doubtful that the items in this list are best characterised as ‘values’.  People have values which determine how desirable they regard other things, things such as the rule of law, democracy and free speech.  These are therefore better regarded as concepts or constitutional principles rather than ‘values’.  To see why this matters consider the example below.

Emphasising our own commitment to “British Values” is not enough.

Until 1968 the Lord Chamberlain had the power under the Theatres Act 1843 to prohibit the performance of any play where he believed that ‘it is fitting for the preservation of good manners, decorum or of the public peace to do so’.  This indicates that until 1968 law-makers placed a higher value on preservation of ‘good manners and decorum’ than upon freedom of speech and expression.

Acts of civil disobedience are undertaken when someone places a higher value on something than the value they place upon compliance with the rule of law.  Thus in the early 1960s the philosopher Bertrand Russell led a series of ‘sit ins’ protesting against both the Vietnam War and nuclear weapons leading the arrest of over 1300 protestors in Trafalgar square, and to seven days in prison for Russell (who was then 89).  In 1990 many people believed that the poll tax was unjust and a nationwide campaign of non-payment resulted in many people serving prison terms rather than making payment.  For all the people concerned, compliance with the rule of law was regarded as less valuable than resisting the unfairness/injustice of poll tax[5].

From time to time, governments have placed a higher value upon what they perceived as the good of society than they have placed upon freedom of speech leading to censorship.  Similarly, it is safe to assume that in North Korea the leadership places a higher value upon maintaining power than upon democracy.

It is one’s values which determine the relative desirability of the concepts the Home Office is seeking to promote: i.e. the rule of law, democracy, equality, freedom of speech and respect for minorities.  Lumping these concepts together and labelling them ‘British Values’ obscures this.

Mrs May says that “extremism is not something that can just be ignored.  It cannot be wished away.  It must be tackled head on.”  We are not told what tackling it ‘head on’ looks like[6].  If ‘tackling head on’ means confronting extremists who break the law by prosecuting them this is hardly a new policy and one I had assumed was already being pursued.   To my mind this is the wisest policy because it both protects society and models respect for the rule of law by our actions.  If ‘tackling head on’ involves repeating in ever more strident terms our own belief in ‘British Values’ as defined by Mrs May this is as unlikely to succeed as declaring to vegetarians that meat is delicious and nutritious and therefore they should quit vegetarianism.  Vegetarians already know this is the majority view about meat, but have rejected it because they value something more than the taste of meat and its nutritional value.

The upshot is this.  If your mission was to promote meat-eating among committed vegetarians you would need to understand two things before you ‘tackled a vegetarian head on’.  Firstly one would need to understand the thinking of vegetarians.  Secondly one would need to understand the arguments in favour of eating meat.

Similarly, IF[7] one is to engage with Islamic Extremists one needs to understand their thinking (which I don’t).  Their actions across the world have been so outrageous and repulsive that it is tempting to assume that whatever is driving them must be so twisted that one should leave it well alone.  No matter how twisted, their thinking is not intrinsically illogical or random: it forms a coherent ideology.  If one is to engage with them beyond prosecuting them or taking the Mayor of Amsterdam’s approach, one will have to learn about that ideology.  Secondly, one would need to be able to give a coherent account of why we as a society and as individuals believe democracy, freedom of speech, the rule of law and equality valued so highly in Britain.  This needs to do more than assert that we like them because, without them, society as we know it would fall apart.  Such an argument is unpersuasive to an Islamic Extremist who would welcome the falling apart of our society.   Before engaging with the extremist one would therefore need to be clear about the moral basis on which our society is founded.  What is the glue which binds us all together?  What is it that gives the so called ‘British Values’ coherence ?   Mrs May’s lecture attempts to side step these difficult issues by taking a short cut marked ‘British Values’.  That path leads to a dead end for the reasons I have tried to explain.  Having knocked down her suggestion it is time to start building up….

Suggested answers on a postcard please …

To be continued…………………..

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-stronger-britain-built-on-our-values

[2]  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Cavell

[3] She said “Islamist extremists believe in a clash of civilisations. They promote a fundamental incompatibility between Islamic and Western values, an inevitable divide between “them and us”. They demand a caliphate, or a new Islamic state, governed by a harsh interpretation of Shari’a law. They utterly reject British and Western values, including democracy, the rule of law, and equality between citizens, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion or sexuality. They believe that it’s impossible to be a good Muslim and a good British citizen. And they dismiss anybody who disagrees with them – including other Muslims – as “kafirs”, or non-believers.

We must always take care to distinguish between Islam – a major world religion followed peacefully by the overwhelming majority of one billion Muslims worldwide – and Islamist extremism. Islam is entirely compatible with British values and our national way of life, while Islamist extremism is not – and we must be uncompromising in our response to it.”

[4] Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 4.

[5] It might be argued that in submitting to prison sentences they were complying with the rule of law in the wider sense but since they had no choice in the matter this is doubtful.

[6] Some tackles made head on leave the tackler unconscious and fail to stop the tackled person.  Occasionally the tackler suffers long term damage.  And sometimes both the tackler and the tackled suffer irreversible damage.  As when a ‘war on terror’ was declared and pursued in the immediate aftermath of 9/11

[7] One might consider that Islamic Extremists are so fixed in their purpose that any form of dialogue would be counter-productive and any attempt to reform their views so unlikely to succeed as to be a waste of time.  Hence this is a very big ‘if’