A law to “promote social cohesion and protect people by tackling extremism” was one of the measures in the Queen’s Speech.
A law to “promote social cohesion and protect people by tackling extremism” was one of the measures in the Queen’s Speech. Additional information about laws which the UK government plans to bring in gave more details of an Extremism Bill.
To some, this might sound sensible. But controversy over a questionnaire which schoolchildren in East London have been asked to fill in, highlights serious risks.
Fears that young people might be ‘radicalised’ and eventually drawn into terrorism are real, as are concerns about other forms of violence. This has largely focused on Islamic extremists, though in reality far-right and other groups have also been involved in organised terror.
However, many have expressed concern that ordinary Muslims who pose no threat may be targeted, and that such laws could be used more broadly to silence dissent.
There is already legislation in place which can be used to crack down on violence, threats and incitement to hatred. These work best if peaceable citizens feel protected, rather than victimised, and are willing to cooperate in defending their communities against harmful acts.
But some definitions of ‘extremism’ are vague and could violate basic freedoms. The Bill would “strengthen government and law enforcement powers to stop extremists promoting views and behaviour that undermine British values.”
It would allow the government to ban groups, give police powers to “stop individuals engaging in extremist behaviour” and punish television channels which “broadcast extremist content”.
A questionnaire which year 5 and 6 pupils in five primary schools in Waltham Forest were told to fill in, indicates the risks. This was part of a BRIT (Building Resilience Through Integration and Trust) project funded by the European Union and delivered by Family Action, a charity.
This attempt to find out about potentially extremist views was so broad in its approach that many young people with a faith background could find themselves unfairly labelled.
The children had to fill in their names, so that they could be identified. They were then asked a series of questions. These included “Which three words would best describe who you are?”, giving the following options: Daughter/son, Student, British, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Artist, Athlete, Young, Other.
Presumably not ticking “British” and including one’s religion would have been regarded as worrying, especially when combined with other ‘wrong’ answers.
For example when asked “If you needed advice, who would you talk to?”, ticking only the box “Religious teacher or leader” might have been regarded as suspicious. But it is quite possible that there is a skilled and sensible youth leader at a local church or mosque who is the most approachable adult in a child’s immediate circle.
In addition, pupils were asked if they agreed with such statements as “I believe my religion is the only correct one” and “God has a purpose for me”, as if these somehow provided a clue to dangerous tendencies.
Yet the thirty-nine articles of religion which, to some extent, still inform the state-connected Church of England would suggest that the answer should be ‘yes’.
Sometimes it was unclear which response was supposed to indicate a proper adherence to ‘British values’, e.g. on whether “People should be free to say what they like, even if it offends others.” Disagreeing might be taken as an early sign that a youngster might later go on a Charlie Hebdo-style rampage. But agreeing might indicate acceptance of hate speech.
Nor was it only people of faith who might fall foul of this test for extremism. Pupils were also asked if they would trust a police officer. Children from the families of active trade unionists (especially if laws governing union activity become even tighter, as the government has pledged) and other protestors might not be very trusting. So might young people from ethnic minorities with bad policing experiences.
When Buxton School, one of those involved, was challenged about the questionnaire, the response was at first defensive.
“As parents you will be well aware of our inclusive ethos and be surprised that this project, aimed at developing a cohesive community, has been misunderstood”, wrote Kathleen Wheeler, the executive head, in a letter dated 22 May and posted on the school’s website. “It has now been shared on social media by those who do not appear to be aware of the school’s historic reputation for inclusiveness and diversity.”
As pressure mounted, the school backed down. Wheeler and the chair of governors issued a statement on 28 May which apologised “for causing distress and worry to students, parents and carers, and others in the community who have raised very real and well-founded concerns… The questionnaires that have been filled in have been destroyed… The local authority has confirmed their intention was to anonymise and then destroy the questionnaires. Despite this we will not be taking part in this method of evaluation now or in the future.”
If an Extremist Act becomes law, there will be a growing risk that children’s ‘wrong’ answers or comments will land their families in serious trouble. Meanwhile police attention will be diverted from real dangers. To avoid this, it is important to protect basic rights and freedoms for all.
—–
© Savitri Hensman is a widely-published Christian commentator of politics, religion, welfare and allied topics. An Ekklesia associate, she works in the care and equalities sector.