Strange times when The Socialist Party of Great Britain finds itself sharing the views of three former government ministers and the Archbishop of Canterbury. When members of the capitalist establishment are kicking against the pricks then something is seriously amiss.
‘Michael Gove has named a string of organisations that could be barred from government funding and meetings under a controversial new definition of extremism.
But he insisted the reform will not impact those "exercising their proper right to free speech", including gender critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists or environmental protest groups.
He named a number of Muslim organisations, which he said would be investigated over extremism fears.
These include the Muslim Association of Britain, Cage and Mend, which he said “give rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views” and will be assessed under the new definition, he told MPs.
He also named Patriotic Alternative and the British National Socialist Movement, which he said would similarly be investigated. The communities secretary has been forced to defend his controversial plans to name and shame new ‘extremist’ groups amid claims the policy threatens the “fabric of a civilised society”.
It has come under fire from three former home secretaries and Justin Welby the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The archbishop said that the plans risk “disproportionately targeting Muslim communities” and threaten the “right to worship and peaceful protest – things that have been hard won and form the fabric of a civilised society.”
But Mr Gove said: "It's not intended to prevent people demonstrating per se, absolutely not.
"It's not a restraint on free speech. It applies only to engagement with government, because we know that there've been cases in the past where individual extremist organisations have sought to take advantage of government patronage, money and influence in order to advance their agenda.” He said the purpose of the new definition was to make clear that goverment “will keep these organisations at arm's length so they can't benefit from access to government and its funds."
Mr Gove insisted groups would only be deemed extremist after "a patient assessment of the evidence" and if they showed "a consistent pattern of behaviour".
But he did not rule out naming specific groups when he gives a statement to the Commons on the new definition later.
Mr Gove said an expert team of civil servants advised by academics would carry out a "very rigorous process of due diligence" to decide whether a group was extremist or not, with the final signoff from either the Home Secretary and Mr Gove himself.
The blacklisted groups will be barred from funding and prevented from meeting ministers and civil servants under the plans.
Mr Gove has insisted the new definition of extremism is necessary to crack down on the “pervasiveness of extremist ideologies” that have “become increasingly clear” in the aftermath of the 7 October attack by Hamas on Israel.
Earlier this month Rishi Sunak warned the UK risked descending into 'mob rule' as he warned the police must take urgent action or risk losing public confidence.
At the time the prime minister pledged to do “whatever it requires to protect our democracy”.
Government officials insist that the new definition sets a “high bar” that will only capture the most concerning activities.
As well as not receiving funding or meeting with ministers, extremist groups or individuals will be barred from public appointments and from receiving honours.
The government published the extremism definition on Thursday and civil servants will now spend the next few weeks deciding which groups fit the criteria.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said the new definition was “at best vague, and at worst risks sowing even more division”.’
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/michael-gove-defends-extremism-policy-110119854.html
The following is from the Socialist Standard, June 1973
‘As members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain we are opposed to all censorship, whether it be through the legalized violence as enforced by the courts of the capitalist state or by the violence of self-appointed moral or political guardians. Let there be no misunderstanding of the meaning of what happened here last week. A body of people decided that the rest of us should not be allowed to hear certain views they considered objectionable; they took it upon themselves to use physical violence to achieve this end — and succeeded. In other words, they successfully censored what we should hear. But will they stop here? Will they now proceed to prevent Eysenck expressing his views in writing? And, after that, will they burn the books he has already written? And what are the prospects for those of us who disagree with them if ever they win control of political power? Will we be shot or just put into concentration camps? These are serious questions since they are the logical extensions of the policy pursued by last week's political censors.
There is a further point: all censorship — especially censorship of this kind, allegedly exercised for the benefit of the working class — is an insult to the intelligence of ordinary working men and women since it implies that they cannot be trusted to hear or read certain ideas and are incapable of making rational judgements on the merits of rival ideas. Those who favour censorship always assume that they are somehow superior to ordinary people and have the right to decide what ordinary people should or should not hear. Censorship is an elitist policy — but those who favour it here at the LSE such as the Maoists and Trotskyists have nothing but contempt for the ability of the working class to understand Socialist ideas and to establish Socialism by and for themselves.
The classic case for allowing unpopular minority views to be expressed — including those with openly anti-democratic ones like fascism AND Maoism — has never been refuted: if they are wrong then their case will perish in the course of free, rational discussion; if they are right then censorship delays discovering this. As our resolution passed by the Union last Thursday puts: "only in the healthy atmosphere of free expression can ideas be debated, false ideas debunked and sound ideas developed". We are always prepared at all our meetings to give opponents of Socialism a chance to express their views. For we are convinced that our views are right and that this will be shown in any free debate — and if we are wrong we wish to know so that we can stop wasting our time. WE STATE unambiguously that ALL censorship is anti-Socialist and anti-working class.
Last week's incident has done one thing, if nothing else. It has brought into the open those who favour censorship of political ideas: the Maoists and Trotskyists. They have placed themselves in the same camp as the fascists themselves and stand exposed as the dangerous enemies of the working class prostituting the good name of Socialism.
We stand for the common ownership of the means of production, without distinction of race or sex, organised democratically.’
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/01/eysenck-at-lse-socialist-defends-free.html
No comments:
Post a Comment