Choudary’s conviction – and why we don’t need an extremism offence
by Paul Goodman, Conservative Home:
The Home Office once told this site that an Extremism Bill, contained in the list of measures announced in May when David Cameron was Prime Minister, was necessary if the likes of Anjem Choudary were to be charged and convicted – in other words, people who don’t themselves commit violent acts but incite other people to do so.
None the less, the odious Choudary is at last on his way to prison. There are claims this morning that his series of front organisations was connected to at least 15 terror plots: his organisation was certainly linked to the 7/7 murderers, Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) and the killer of Lee Rigby. Many who hear the news will feel both satisfaction, because Choudary is now behind bars, and bewilderment, because they will wonder what took the authorities so long. Certainly, there are questions to be answered about why he was allowed by the state to claim benefits and by social media effectively to use it to recruit. And as we wrote previously, “it is a damning condemnation of our culture that broadcasters effectively collaborate in building up his influence and reach by giving him publicity”.
We also suggested that there was a gap in the law which the likes of Choudary can exploit, but there are two main reasons for believing than an Extremism Bill may not be the solution to it. First, there is the simple fact that Choudary is at last in jail: so there may not be an insuperable problem after all. Second, there is no sign to date that the Government will come up with a workable definition of extremism. One PPS to a Minister suggested that anti-extremism legislation could be used against opponents of same-sex marriage, a view echoed in a standard letter from no less senior a Minister than the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. One definition, from the Government’s counter-extremism strategy, focuses on “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values”.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
