26th July 2011
We Need to Fight Extremism, But Remain True to Liberal Democracy
Mark Hanson
The atrocities in Norway, allegedly carried out by Anders Behring Breivik, a right-wing extremist, have been roundly and rightly condemned by almost all commentators. The hatred and twisted beliefs that drove this man to detonate a bomb in Oslo and murder over 90 people, many at a youth camp near the capital, cannot be fully comprehended – and neither should be.
Yet off the back of this has come the usual knee-jerk reaction: the need is for a stringent clampdown on certain sections of society, this time those who hold to far-right political beliefs.
Writing in the Guardian, Matthew Goodwin said:
“I recently reviewed an academic book that ended with the prediction that the next wave of terrorism in Europe will come not from al-Qaida-inspired groups, but rather rightwing groups that want to respond to this threat and reassert the position of their wider group. It is far too early to tell whether Breivik's actions will inspire copycat attacks, but one thing remains clear: the threat from rightwing extremist groups and ideas deserves far greater attention.”
There is a call to crackdown on the far-right, a correct acknowledgement that the terrorist threat is not only a danger from Asian Muslims, but from white so-called “Christian” Europeans. Aslak Sira Myhre wrote, again in the Guardian:
“When the world believed this to be an act of international Islamist terrorism, state leaders, from Obama to Cameron, all stated that they would stand by Norway in our struggle. Which struggle will that be now? All western leaders have the same problem within their own borders. Will they now wage war on homegrown rightwing extremism? On Islamophobia and racism?”
It is well to acknowledge that there are people, some individuals and some organised into groups, who will seek to influence through the bullet and the bomb rather than through the voice and the pen.
The processes and moral ethics of war are confused and hypocritical in many respects, yet when the processes and instruments of war are defined into terrorism there is always a sense that what the “terrorist” believed must inherently be wrong, whilst the bombs raining down on Afghanistan and now Libya are somehow the work of heroes. I am not saying here that terrorism is right and State-sponsored warfare is wrong – I am merely highlighting my statement: the processes and moral ethics of war are confused and hypocritical in many respects.
Some of the calls for action against the far-right have a real and almost inherent danger: at what point does a man, or group, move from being persons with an extreme view to being a potential terrorist?
The general cry at the moment is that every far-right person is a potential terrorist. Of course, in the UK, every Irish man is a potential terrorist, and every Muslim is a potential terrorist. Matthew Goodwin points out:
“The sources of his ideological influences have started to become clear. He was far from what we might term a traditional rightwing extremist. While he was profoundly concerned about the effects of immigration, multiculturalism, Islam and the growth of settled Muslim communities, he was also dismissive of crude racial supremacist and neo-Nazi ideas and parties that espoused these ideas, naming for example the British National Party (BNP).”
In the UK, police monitor the movements and communications of climate change campaigners and centre-left opponents of the austerity measures: these are named as “domestic extremists”. Can we trust anyone anymore?
Yet in particular the trend is moving seemingly inexorably towards less tolerance of divergent views. We cannot accept an insult – there is a law against that. We cannot accept any expression of concern at the massive influx of immigrants. We cannot accept any suggestion that there are important failures in the community due to cultural and religious differences. Any who should suggest such things are putting themselves in the category of “extremist”.
I would not support extremist views, and personally welcome a certain degree of immigration, yet I am concerned that the ever-widening category of “extremist” and the renewed calls for a legal clampdown across Europe on those so categorised, whether engaged in traditional criminality or not, will bring about three major effects:
Firstly, the political and cultural discourse of our countries will not be made more free and honest if we outlaw certain expressions. Our democracies will seriously suffer.
Second, both those who do have real and those who have deluded views on areas that have become classified as extreme will be driven further underground, where a feedback loop will produce ever more wild expressions, beliefs and actions.
And third, there will arise a persecution of those who do not follow the majoritarianism that is becoming more and more prevalent, where minorities and those with divergent views have to bow to the will of the masses. The oppression of the many by the one pales against the oppression of the few by the many.
To end this article, I return to where I started: the actions of Anders Behring Breivik were evil, irrational and unacceptable. The extremist views need to be properly countered. Yet we cannot make unpopular views illegal: that would be the full creation of what Orwell foresaw as a “thought crime”.
Some hours after the bomb blast, the Norwegian prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, said that our [Norway’s] answer to the attack should be more democracy and more openness. I would concur.
