We have just caught up with an article by Alistair Carmichael in The Independent. The headline itself offers a jolt: “The Extremism Bill means that the Queen’s speech might be the only one you hear from now on”. Writing just before the Queen’s Speech last week he claimed:
This Government still seems wedded to the notion that if you ban something it will go away.They banned psychoactive substances, despite zero evidence that it would reduce harm. They tried banning encryption, making all of our data less secure. Now they are trying to ban “extremist speech” via an Extremism Bill which they will introduce in the Queen’s Speech tomorrow.
Alistair makes it clear that he believes we should be tackling violent extremism but …
It is vital that we differentiate between violent extremism and non-violent extremism. For those who incite violence and preach hate there are already laws that the Home Secretary can use to shut them down. There are public order laws, hate speech laws and terrorism laws that could all be used in these instances.
For those who hold extreme views and are attempting to persuade others, surely the answer is not to ban them but to win the argument – on the grounds of efficiency, if nothing else.
The current definition of extremism as “the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs” is drafted so widely that it will not only catch terrorist sympathisers but perhaps even those who oppose the government, believe the monarchy should be abolished or disagree with same-sex marriage.
And he gives this commitment:
The Liberal Democrats are clear: we will work with all those in Parliament (even those whose views may come across as extreme or distasteful to us) in order to block this Bill. It has no place in a liberal, open and tolerant society.
You can read the full article here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The street in Australia named after my great great grandfather
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
David Warren
Roland
David Raw
Peter Chambers
8 Comments
This is the guy I reported for extremism who got found not guilty:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33689764
It says “found not guilty of disseminating terrorist publications and supporting a proscribed group.”
If you check out his Youtube channel it is incomprehensible that he doesn’t support IS. So why are the current laws failing? As I’ve said: he spends full videos defending ISIS and then caveats them with “I don’t condone or condemn them”. But it seems to me he does condone them.
We can’t have an approach where we let off anyone who denies being an extremist.
It’s not surprising. The Conservative Party has constantly tried to use bans as both a political and social tool throughout its history. Even in the recent they have used bans on books. films. political opposition, trade unions, the promotion of homosexuality(seriously!), dance parties, the right to assembly and sundry other activities. They are authoritarian and some would suggest paranoid to the core.
What happened to the “evidence-led” approach? Shouldn’t Lib Dems at least wait for the actual Bill to be published – which isn’t going to happen until after a consultation and the publication of the Casey report – before deciding they’re going to be opposed to it? Carmichael didn’t even wait for the Queen’s Speech before jumping to conclusions.
One of the issues the new Bill is supposed to tackle is this kind of thing :-
http://news.sky.com/story/1670528/exposed-uk-school-promoting-extreme-islam
If we already have laws to stop this, what are they and why are they not being used?
“They banned psychoactive substances, despite zero evidence that it would reduce harm” – has Mr Carmichael taken spice ? Would he like to outline the positive benefits of anyone taking it?
@Caracatus, are you under the impression that banned spice is likely to be less harmful than legal spice? That is unlikely and there is evidence with the experience of past bans on former legal highs that not only is the product more dangerous, consumption hasn’t reduced… in fact in the case of some substances it has increased.
Caracatus
“has Mr Carmichael taken spice ?”
I have never been a Budist that shouldn’t prevent me opposing the government making being one illegal.
@ Glenn Andrews if you want to outline the positive benefits of anyone taking it, go ahead. There is no such thing as safe legal spice or many of the other illegal drugs. Banning them doesn’t make them less pure and more dangerous, what make them so is that the people making them and the people selling them have absolutley no concern for the welfare of people taking them.
I agree with Stuart , what happened to evidence?! Probably the Bill is a lousy one , but what is better is to judge a Bill, not an idea you think you have the exact knowledge of what it is going to look like .
On the BBC this approach turned out badly , as the plans are tame compared with the rhetoric against beforehand .As a party we would do better to pick and choose the things we speak dramatically about. This is one of them .Yes to the principle .Not yet in practice .