Hey presto! You’re an extremist!

Michael Gove has published the UK government’s new definition of extremism. Whatever purpose this definition might serve – it is open to debate whether it serves any purpose – it is important to note at the outset that it only applies in England. A point I shall return to later. Already, the text has been widely criticised by people and organisations concerned about civil rights – including some Conservatives. In the main, this criticism has focused on the potential impact of the definition on such as left-wing activists, environmental campaigners and pro-Palestine demonstrators. What I’d like to do here is imagine that Gove’s definition is applicable in Scotland and ponder how it might affect the independence campaign.

Please bear in mind that we’re only pretending the definition is relevant in Scotland for the purpose of some potentially illuminating speculation.

The image above shows an extract from the explanatory notes with the text I particularly want to look at highlighted. There may be other aspects of the definition which give cause for concern. These are the three that caught my attention. Let’s take them one at a time.

Advocating that the UK’s parliamentary democracy and democratic values and rights are not compatible with their ideology, and seeking to challenge, overthrow, or change our political system outside of lawful means.

One criticism of the definition is that it is not definitive enough. The language is too loose and open to a range of interpretations. The above illustrates this perfectly. As a campaigner for the restoration of Scotland’s independence, by definition I am advocating that the “UK’s parliamentary democracy and democratic values and rights” conflict with both the nationalist aspect of my ideology and my conception of democratic values and rights”. I adhere to the principle of popular sovereignty, which cannot be reconciled with the British concept of parliamentary sovereignty. This surely brings me within the compass of Gove’s definition of extremism.

I also have serious doubts about whether Michael Gove and his colleague cherish the same “democratic values and rights” as myself. For example, I insist on the right of self-determination as a most fundamental underpinning of anything that I would recognise as democratic values. Once again. there is a fatal mismatch here between my ‘ideology’ and the dominant ideology of England-as-Britain. Therefore, according to the definition, I am an extremist.

As an independence campaigner, I obviously seek to “challenge, overthrow, or change [their] political system”. The means I employ, while entirely non-violent and impeccably democratic, are inevitably unlawful because the British state allows no lawful means by which I can achieve the ‘ideological’ aim of restoring Scotland’s independence. To illustrate this, we need only refer to the fact that the British state makes it unlawful for us to hold a proper constitutional referendum on the question of dissolving the Union without the consent that they will always withhold. According to Gove’s definition, even demanding a proper constitutional referendum could be deemed any extremist act.

Subverting the way public or state institutions exercise their powers, in order to further ideological goals, for example through entryism, or by misusing powers or encouraging others to do so.

This is another example of wording so loose as to form a lasso which might be thrown around many activities which have previous not been considered at all extremist in nature. Think of how this part of the definition might expand to encompass various forms of direct action or acts of civil disobedience. For example, I urge that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament act in ways that the British state would surely regard as “misusing powers”. The Scottish Government doing anything with the ultimate intention of ending the Union with England-as-Britain could – and definitely would – be branded extremism. As would my encouraging such action. Hey presto! I’m an extremist again!

Establishing parallel governance structures which, whether or not they have formal legal underpinning, seek to supersede the lawful powers of existing institutions of state.

What immediately came to mind as I read this was the idea of some form of National Convention which is widely touted by individuals and groups withing the independence movement. To suppose that the British state wouldn’t contrive to make this definition of extremism applicable to such a “parallel governance structure” one would have to imagine a great deal of goodwill. I’m not sure anyone has a powerful enough imagination.

As noted, Gove’s definition of extremism only applies in England. But it would be foolish to think the British media will have any regard for this nicety. They, and assorted ‘fringe’ politicians as well as anonymous spokesbladders allegedly close to power, will use the definition as if it is relevant in Scotland. So, even if the British state isn’t actually accusing anyone in Scotland of being an extremist, it will be as if they are from the public’s point of view.

Using such a loose definition, the British state can claim that extremism is everywhere and so justify ever more repressive measures. Who can possibly believe that this is not precisely what is intended?

A final word. Elsewhere, the definition concocted by Michael Gove covers “Intentionally creating a permissive environment for behaviour” that has been deemed extremist. This is further defined as, inter alia, “Providing an uncritical platform for individuals or representatives of groups or organisations”. Is it not easy to envisage this and other pro-independence blogs falling foul of such a definition of extremism? For my own part, were I not doing many (most?) of the things the British state wants to label extremist, then I would consider myself a failure as an activist in the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence.

If the British state doesn’t consider me an extremist, then I really have to rethink my whole approach.