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。

对话Otter.ai的梁松:我们可以从会议和对话中获取有价值的数据

这家会议转录初创公司的联合创始人认为,我们甚至可以用虚拟形象代替自己进行工作互动。

朔尔茨迎来自己的“拜登时刻”

德国总理受到党内压力,要求其效仿美国总统拜登退出竞选。

欧盟极右翼党团在气候和高层任命问题上获得更多支持

欧洲议会中右翼议员正越来越多地与极右翼联手瓦解该集团的绿色议程,并推动更严格的移民限制措施。

毛利人对新西兰后阿德恩时代的民粹主义转向感到愤怒

卢克森的保守党政府推翻了前总理的许多进步政策。

Lex专栏:英伟达令人炫目的增长与每个人都息息相关

这家芯片巨头的盈利对美国股票投资者来说是一件大事,这不仅仅是因为其3.6万亿美元的市值。

欧洲比以往任何时候都更需要企业增长冠军

欧洲正在急切地寻找企业增长冠军,FT-Statista按长期收入增长对欧洲企业进行的首次排名展示了这方面的可能性。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×