This is a guest post by Jamie Bartlett of Demos
I spoke on Friday at the FOSIS conference on campus extremism. I think three themes are worthy of your time.
First, there was broad agreement that extremist ideas should be given an airing on campus, but that they must always be challenged. It is the lack of the latter which has irked in the past – the difference between a debate and echo chamber. Who is responsible for that challenge (University? Union?) and how that happens (a guaranteed ‘dissenter’ place on a panel?) is the interesting bit, and is not clear. But FOSIS do seem committed to doing their bit: at their last conference they had uber-hawk Anthony Glees speak (and invited him again this year). FOSIS should be commended for this. It is after all a fundamental tenet of liberal philosophy that people and groups can and do change, and liberals should welcome it when they do.
Second, there was opprobrium at the government’s commitment to fighting non-violent extremism: What is it? And why should the government be concerned about it? Many in the crowd pointed out (and some on the panel) the relationship between extremism and terrorism is not empiricaly proven, which is correct, although it is probably impossible to ever definitely prove something of this nature. By linking terrorism and extremism, the government is going about this the wrong way, because terrorism is not the only thing the government ought to concern itself with. I suggested that there are many types of extremism, but it becomes a matter for government action when it actively opposes or undermines the democratic and human rights of British citizens, even through perfectly peaceful, liberal means. This is extremism that denies everyone’s right to peacefully, constitutionally and democratically pursue their own beliefs, which is of a different magnitude to screaming about Palestine or holding a conservative view about homosexuality. In my opinion, extremism of this nature does need a government response; any relationship to terrorism is incidental. Again, I think there was some agreement on this point.
Finally, a speech by Ajmal Masroor made me think about the responsibilities of speaking. Ajmal is very charismatic, and for twenty minutes vividly ploughed into the government, accusing it demonising the religion of Islam and British Muslims (admittedly the speech was about extremism faced by the Muslim community). Yet in accusing the government of making sweeping, inaccurate generalisations, he made quite a few of his own: that Islamophobia has passed Warsi’s dinner table test; that the Government has never been willing to work with groups it disagreed with (funny, because the poor government stands accused of the precise opposite by contributors to this blog, among others). Where was much needed nuance? It is a common and natural tendency to play to the crowd, and of course I’m guilty of it too. Even Socrates once said he had to force himself to avoid the temptation. In this case, Ajmal was inadvertently fanning the flames of anti-government sentiment, that Britain is no place for Muslims – which is wrong and unhelpful.
Sadiq Khan did the same with the absurd suggestion that Cameron was writing propaganda for the English Defence League. No Sadiq – you were.
Having a platform to speak to young students is an immense privilege, and with it comes responsibility. A good thought for the whole conference really, which was a worthwhile thing for FOSIS to do. I hope readers of this blog will welcome – and attend – future events.
