In an age of extremism, Sara Khan's report on extremism report is on a tonic

For this reason, both the report and the underlying academic papers which support it were necessarily subject to an extensive process of peer-review, verification and testing of each piece of underlying evidence. The outcome is a report which is authoritative, fully-sourced and, for that reason, utterly compelling. Most importantly, the accounts of the conduct of some of Britain’s worst extremists carry even greater weight because they are set out in an official report by a governmental body. 

The report also devotes significant attention to the horrifying abuse which all those who confront the far left, far right and Islamists face. 
I cannot tell you how dispiriting it is to counter the escalating vitriol, often accompanied by the wild-eyed advocacy of totalitarianism, that characterises extremist politics. 

I have heard dismal stories from friends, some of whom have worked in local government in counter-extremism roles, who have been the target of the most personal campaigns of vilification directed by extremist organisations. Shockingly, we have often been left completely without assistance. 

One of the most heartening messages of the report, therefore, is that the Commission has promised to stand in solidarity with those on the front lines of the battle against extremism. Importantly, it recognises that the government must also support those who do so.  

As the Commission notes, the concept of “extremism” is a tricky one. 

Extremism is only problematic when it represents a challenge to the institutions of liberal democracy: equality, personal liberty, and so on. 

However, what is meant by extremism is not always well understood. In particular, the tension between competing rights, in particular with freedom of expression, has generally not been resolved in a consistent or objectively justifiable manner. 

Quite properly, the Commission recognises the importance of protecting speech, even where it is “offensive, critical or shocking”. But by putting the propagation of hatred at the heart of their definition, it has captured a defining feature of much extremist activity: its viciousness. It is correct to do so. 

I have sat through hours of Islamist videos, watching preacher after preacher advance their case for theocracy. Wrong though it is, theirs is an argument which could be made forensically and dispassionately. But they choose, instead, to employ rhetoric which is steeped in loathing. 

Islamists will often say that non-Muslims are “worse than animals”, and must be “pushed against the wall” when they walk in the street. Terrorists are portrayed as heroes and role models, whose lives and deaths are to be emulated. Hatred is an important, and often overlooked, marker of extremism. 

Accordingly, the Commission describes “hateful extremism” as behaviour  “that can incite and amplify hate, or engage in persistent hatred, or equivocate about and make the moral case for violence”. Extremist activity is typically justified by “hateful, hostile or supremacist beliefs directed at an out-group who are perceived as a threat to the wellbeing, survival or success of an in-group”. 

The Commission’s definition goes on to focus on conduct that can cause “harm to individuals, communities or wider society”.

As we all know, too well, hatred of Jews is a consistent feature of extremism of all types. The report calls out antisemitism out in all parts of the extremist landscape. It notes that far-right demagogues are typically preoccupied by a Jewish elite controlling world events, while far-left politics often fosters a belief that Jewish financiers are the hidden hand that guides “imperialism”. Muslim organisations which work with Jews are repeatedly targeted by Islamist agitators.

One of the most depressing aspects of the struggle against extremist groups is that, even where the culprits have been exposed, it makes no difference to civic engagement with those groups. 

In Quilliam’s paper, published by the Commission in parallel with its report, we focus on the case of Shakeel Begg, the Imam of the Lewisham Islamic Centre. 

Begg was described as an extremist by the BBC. He sued, and lost. Having reviewed the testimony and evidence, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave observed that he was “something of a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ character. He appears to present one face to the general local and interfaith community and another to particular Muslim and other receptive audiences. The former face is benign, tolerant and ecumenical; the latter face is ideologically extreme and intolerant. He has worked hard to cultivate an image of himself as a highly respected figure in the Lewisham community. 

“However, it is clear that on occasions when it has suited him, and he was speaking to predominantly Muslim audiences and/or audiences who might be receptive to his message, he has shed the cloak of respectability and revealed the horns of extremism.”

Notwithstanding this damning judgment, we demonstrated that, following the judgment, this preacher and his institution continued to be treated as a partner in local and national interfaith work, by a range of civil society groups, and by Lewisham Council. 

The Commission, to its great credit, sought an explanation from Lewisham Council for its continued involvement with Begg.

Astonishingly, the council responded by praising this man’s interfaith activities. They opined that they “considered that they had no role to play in sanctioning Begg, because of the requirement that they remain impartial and objective unless a criminal or safeguarding matter is brought to their attention”. That is a breathtaking abdication of responsibility. 

The reason that Quilliam focused on the mainstreaming of extremists is this. 

First, when public bodies honour extremists with engagement, it results in the collapse of the civil society cordon sanitaire, which restricts them to the fringes of public life.

Secondly, extremists use such events in order to demonstrate that that concerns about their activities were misplaced, in turn making it more difficult for Muslims who oppose them to raise the alarm.

The mainstreaming of extremists must stop. The Commission should be congratulated for the firm stance they have taken on this vital issue. In particular, they recommend that “government should deliver its commitment to set out who it will or will not engage and why, with clear guidance on how organisations and individuals can regain this status”. 

The formulation and publication of such official guidelines should be addressed as a matter of urgency. It would represent a line in the sand which, to date, no government has properly drawn or enforced.

The Commission also heard evidence from Nahamu, on whose Board I sit. Nahamu focuses on the concerns of those within the Charedi Jewish community who refuse to sacrifice their personal autonomy or welfare.

We were tremendously heartened by the passages in the report which addresses two of the most pressing problems which Jews in some parts of these communities face. First, it notes the restriction of a child’s right to a balanced education, and in particular, the position of boys who do not receive even a basic education in English and numeracy, past the barmitzvah age.

Secondly, it addresses the removal of information relating to human reproduction from textbooks in a particular school.

The last few years have been a dark time. Political polarisation, the sheer nastiness of the tone of public debate, and the crowing confidence of extremists of all species is the hallmark of our age.

At times, all of us have wondered what sort of country Britain will become if we continue on this trajectory. But the Commission’s report has given us some cause for optimism. We know that we are not alone, and that Sara Khan and her staff have our back. When the prognosis is so dire, that hope is the most valuable tonic of all. 

David Toube is Director of Policy, Quilliam