24th March 2024
Just Stop Oil protests – extremist activity?
The British government’s New definition of extremism (2024) published in mid March may not establish a House Committee on un-British Activities but is certainly a step in the direction of the anti-communist witch hunts which were a feature of life in the post war United States. Michael Gove is unlikely to be in office as long as US witch finder general, Senator Joseph McCarthy, but his ‘new definition’ is certainly a step in the direction of McCarthyism, smuggling in a number of constraints under the umbrella of tackling Islamist or neo-Nazi extremism.
In defining behaviour that could constitute extremism the new definition includes,
“Attempts to undermine, overturn, or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights.”
This definition of necessity presumes acceptance of the implied interpretation of ‘liberal parliamentary democracy’ as well as a shared understanding of what constitute ‘democratic rights’.
The terminology is typical of the smokescreen used under capitalism to shroud its illiberal and anti-democratic core in language designed to make the system appear fair and just.
The capitalist system will allow liberalism up to the point at which it sees the danger of exposure or any threat to the status quo. The various tools at its disposal, including the press and social media, smear campaigns, use of the security services, and ultimately the threat or use of force, can be deployed in varying ways to head off any perceived danger.
The recent period of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party from 2015 -19 is a case in point. Although representing a relatively mild threat to the established order the popularity of Corbyn’s message, highlighting glaring disparities between rich and poor; inequalities across class, race and gender; and the concentration of power and influence in the hands of a few corporations and bankers in the City of London, was deemed to be too close to the truth to be allowed to take root.
The systematic character assassination of Corbyn, and the subsequent eradication of any radical dimension to Labour policy under Kier Starmer, illustrates the establishment response to even a mild threat.
The presentation of politics as a choice of who governs, between the Tories and Labour, with perennial pro-capitalist Liberal Democrats occasionally called upon to prop up the system, makes a mockery of the idea of ‘liberal democracy’ as there is essentially no choice to be made. Capitalism, which is the system of the ruling class, run by the ruling class, for the ruling class, will always win on these terms!
Labour administrations have provided nuance, at least in domestic policy. However, even the most democratic achievement of Labour, the National Health Service, is under threat from the intrusion of the private sector and the danger of healthcare not being free at the point of use, or at least more difficult to access. In foreign policy there has been universal consensus between the leadership of the main political parties on all major issues from the invasion of Iraq to the deployment of Trident nuclear submarines.
When it comes to ‘democratic rights’ there is an equivalent sleight of hand in defining terms and emphasis. Democratic rights under capitalism are usually reduced to being able to vote for the political party of your choice with some degree of freedom of expression and assembly permitted. There is no right to employment however, or housing, as the jobless and homeless will testify. The NHS may be the pride of social policy in Britain but access to healthcare in the United States for example, self styled leaders of the ‘free world’, is very much dependent upon ability to pay. Democratic rights are defined in terms which suit the ruling class and do not challenge its endemic failings, to be able to feed, house and employ its citizens.
The ‘new definition’ claims that the first duty of government is “to keep our citizens safe and our country secure”. Citizens sleeping on the streets, going hungry for lack of food, or struggling to find work are hardly ‘safe’. Nor is a country secure that makes itself a potential target by cravenly supporting the militarist adventures of the United States and NATO, or positioning itself as the enemy of progress by supporting the ongoing massacre of Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Defence Force.
The Tories and the main architect of the ‘new definition’, Michael Gove, will no doubt claim that the intention of the guidance is not to target those with strong opposition views but only those seeking to promote “violence, hatred or intolerance”. The Left, it is claimed, should have no fear for they are not the objects of the guidance, being neither Islamist nor neo-Nazi extremists.
However, little more than a few strokes of the proverbial pen could see that position change. Given the more draconian powers the police have under the Public Order Act 2023, which bans any act “which interferes with the use or operation of any key national infrastructure in England and Wales”, which could include protest on the public highway, taking the ‘new definition’ at face value would appear to be naïve at best.
Not surprisingly the Labour leadership have made no commitment to repeal the legislation, being afraid that they will be characterised as not being tough enough on crime if they commit to do so. With a General Election looming the issues of tackling extremism and public order are likely to be played up by the Tories, who see these as issues on which they can win votes. Labour simply aping the Tories will convince no-one but is likely to alienate many.
Pressure upon Labour when in opposition or in office, from mass extra Parliamentary action and from the wider labour movement, will be vital if there is to be any prospect of changing the legislative landscape for political activity in Britain. That such action could be deemed ‘extremist’ may deter the fainthearted but without such action there is every prospect that worse will follow. There may be a ‘new definition’ but for the British ruling class, old habits die hard.
Avanti Populo 