Categories: News

What is extremism, and how do we decide?

Southern Chivalry Argument Versus Clubs. By John L. Magee, circa 1856. On May 22, 1856, during the Bleeding Kansas crisis, Massachusetts Republican Senator Charles Sumner delivered a speech to Congress in which he denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and demanded that Kansas be admitted to the Union as a free state. In his oration, he verbally attacked the pro-slavery South Carolina Senator, Andrew Butler, and called into question the man’s code of Southern chivalry, accusing him of taking slavery as his mistress. Two days later, Preston Brooks, a South Carolina Congressman and also Butler’s cousin, nearly beat Sumner to death on the Senate floor with a cane. Responses to the attack in the North and the South further polarized the people of the nation, leading it further down the path to war. In the print, Brooks uses a bloody cane to strike the Massachusetts Senator, who has fallen out of his chair and lies on the ground below the Southerner, bleeding from gashes on his forehead. He holds in his right hand a quill he had been using to write on a document containing the word, “Kansas.” Behind the struggle, other Congressmen look on, appearing either disgusted or delighted. In the back left, Brooks’ fellow South Carolinian Representative, Laurence M. Keitt, prevents a bystander from interrupting. The illustration is signed in the lower left hand corner by John L. Magee. Born in New York around 1820, Magee was initially employed by the lithographic firms of James Baillie and Nathaniel Currier. He started his own business in New York in 1850, but moved to Philadelphia sometime shortly after 1852. He was known for his political cartoons, which he produced until the 1860s. Via American History Museum of the Smithsonian.

Keiran Hardy, Griffith University

As controversy over Australia’s new hate laws continues, last weekend’s so-called March for Australia rallies were the latest in a string of events that have raised the temperature of public debate.

It’s hard to generalise about the motivations of those involved. Politicians representing Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party attended. So did members of the wider community who oppose immigration policies and a smaller number of more extreme agitators.

Some people crossed a line into criminal behaviour. One man was charged with inciting racial hatred against Jewish people. Police are investigating another man for throwing a bomb into the crowd at an Invasion Day rally in Perth.

The neo-Nazi group National Socialist Network formally disbanded to avoid the new hate offences passed earlier this month. But links have been uncovered between its former members and rally organisers. It remains to be seen how the authorities will approach far-right groups who continue to operate while skirting the law’s boundaries.

The strong anti-immigration sentiment expressed at these rallies raises complex questions about freedom of speech, rights to political protest and growing threats of extremism.

A fundamental source of these challenges is the difficulty in saying – especially in a democracy that values freedom of speech – when someone crosses the line from legitimate social and political beliefs into “extremism”.

It now seems rare for a day to go by without some mention of extremism in the news. But the meaning of this important word is also rarely explained or interrogated.

So what is extremism really, and how do we decide who and what is extremist?

Extremism: violent or not?

Defining extremism is difficult in part because most counter-terrorism policies target violent extremism.

In its recent counter-terrorism and violent extremism strategy, the Australian government defined violent extremism as:

acts of or support for violence to achieve social, political or legal outcomes or in response to specific political or social grievances.

If someone commits a violent act or supports violence, it’s easier to say they have crossed the line into behaviour worthy of government intervention.

Violent extremism can be a crime, such as advocating terrorism, urging violence or inciting racial hatred. Depending on the seriousness of the conduct and a person’s individual circumstances, though, the authorities might instead recommend a different type of intervention. This could include counselling or other support.

Confusing definitions

If we consider just the “extremism” part of violent extremism, things get much trickier.

The United Kingdom, in its “Prevent” strategy, has long targeted extremism, without requiring a link to violence. Until recently, it favoured a broad definition that said extremism meant actively opposing “fundamental British values”.

This was controversial for its impacts on freedom of speech. It also sparked concerns in schools, universities, hospitals and other institutions. These places are required to monitor for signs of extremism in their students, patients and communities.

Strategy toolkits and training materials explained that Prevent applied to ideologies “beyond the norm”.

This is particularly unhelpful. Who gets to say what are fundamental British values, and what’s normal?

After the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7 2023, the UK government responded to these criticisms and offered a new definition of extremism. It focuses on threats to democracy:

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:

negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or

undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or

intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

This definition improves on the previous one, though it blurs the boundaries between non-violent extremism, violent extremism and terrorism.

On the one hand, it could involve a plot to overthrow the UK government or destroy the fundamental rights of a group based on their ethnicity or religious beliefs.

On the other hand, it could mean someone seeking to deny a group’s rights based on hatred and intolerance. That would still be highly problematic, but it would be more in the realm of hate speech and hate crime than a terrorist coup.

Without a link to violence, extremism can be understood as views and behaviours that undermine the health of our democracy, or discriminate against groups based on their race, religion or other attributes, while creating permissive environments for serious harm.

Extremism may still breach civil or criminal laws, including for hate speech. But it would not trigger more serious terrorism offences – or else we would be in the realm of violent extremism.

How do we decide?

By calling something or someone extremist, we are saying the beliefs and behaviours fall outside legitimate contributions to the public sphere. This must mean something more than views we consider to be highly controversial, offensive or generally unpalatable.

Agreeing on this thin dividing line is probably an impossible task. Extremism occupies a liminal space where someone’s beliefs and behaviours do not involve or advocate violence, but there is a strong public sense that they are, nonetheless, undermining the terms of our (increasingly fragile) social contract.

Still, we should not be afraid to call out extremist behaviour where we see it. But we should take into account what the term means and consider whether the behaviour fits the definition.

Then, extremism will not just be another buzzword, but a term with real meaning that can help us all to determine appropriate limits for democratic debate.

Keiran Hardy, Associate Professor, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation