Politics

Handle extreme views with care

The best way to counter them is to open them up to scrutiny

June 07, 2013
article header image

In the aftermath of the stabbing of Lee Rigby in Woolwich, the Home Secretary Theresa May has called for more stringent measures against extremist groups. She condemned broadcasters for giving platforms to Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary and it has been reported that Ofcom could be given powers to ban extremist preachers from appearing on television programmes.

Making it illegal for political extremists to take part in public debates would not only narrow freedom of speech in the UK, but would make it harder for us to publicly engage with and scrutinise hateful beliefs. The emotive discussion of the Woolwich attack underlines the importance of editorial responsibility, whether in conscientiously facilitating debates with extremists, or taking care with the words of other voices. The removal of editorial powers and the movement to limit public discussion would be an inappropriate, knee-jerk response by the government.

Radicalisation is by its nature secretive and on the terms of the person doing the radicalising. The advantage of a forum for debate is that it moves the extremist away from a comfortable setting and into a far more critical domain. In 2009, Nick Griffin, head of the British Nationalist Party, appeared on BBC Question Time to much protest. The episode attracted a record audience of 7.8 million, three times the normal audience. Griffin came across as a prejudiced conspiracy theorist, and awkwardly refused to address his stance on the Holocaust. He was clearly unaccustomed to such fierce scrutiny, and his appearance on Question Time stands out as a moment where BNP ideas were taken apart in the public eye. Since then the party’s credibility has fallen and its membership has plunged.

David Anderson, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has defended what he calls the “marketplace of ideas,” the state of affairs whereby the clash of conflicting ideas can lead to better understanding and progress. Securing a place for extremists at the table of discussion can rob them of some of their more potent tools: secrecy and unaccountability.

In the case of Anjem Choudary’s interview on Channel 4, the preacher was forced to deal with a barrage of criticism. Before a critical panel he described Michael Adebolajo, the suspect in the Woolwich attack, as a man of “impeccable character” and refused to condemn the killing outright. Julie Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of Britain, seated alongside Choudary, unequivocally deplored the attack, and was able to distance herself and the mainstream Muslim community from Choudary. There is no doubt that Choudary, who knew Adebolahjo, was relevant to the discussion. Allowing him to take part in the programme not only submitted his past statements and conduct to scrutiny, but also highlighted how his views are unrepresentative of British Muslims. The government should not dismiss this editorial power lightly.

But editorial responsibility works both ways, and editors should also know when to moderate voices, especially at times when emotions are charged. One such example occurred two weeks ago when, in an angry Spectator blog, Rod Liddle referred to the alleged killers as “black savages.” The editor responsible should have known better than to run Liddle’s hastily written words in their original form, and the post was met with widespread condemnation. Liddle eventually apologised and removed “black” from the post. Now, more than ever, the language used by commentators can have far-reaching effects. Rather than limiting public discourse, however, we need to be working towards a more informed and rational scrutiny of arguments put forward in the media.

Journalists of all sorts must also be wary of sensationalising and mischaracterising people’s words. This could be seen with Tony Blair’s recent article in the Mail on Sunday. He argued that there is a “problem within Islam,” claiming that there are strands of fanaticism more widespread than usually admitted. The conservative American website Fox Nation then gave its coverage of the article the headline, “Be honest… there is a problem with Islam,” a profound mischaracterisation of the argument, before taking the post down soon after it was spotted. Such misrepresentation could potentially aid extremists—“Tony Blair confirms everything we say,” tweeted English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson—but it was countered by vigorous responses online.

In all of these cases, widespread public engagement acted as an effective counterbalance to the diffusion of knee-jerk ideas. The reactions to the Woolwich murder show that the best way to counter extremism is to encourage the exchange and scrutiny of ideas, undermining those who depend on secrecy and emotive arguments. Editors can make mistakes, as recent events have shown, but attempting to curtail their responsibilities would be counterproductive.