Define extremism (I can’t)

I’m passionate, you are overzealous, they are extremist. And an outside observer who is none of those things, may think we are all the same.

This ought to remind us that philosophy is largely a science of definitions, which may be objective, subjective, absolute, relative, contingent and anything else you can think of. Now, few of our MPs can ever be accused of being philosophers, and yet they too are currently embroiled in a heated argument about definitions.

They feel politically obligated to rid Britain of extremism, which worthy intention we should all welcome. Yet before we ban something we have to decide what it is that we are banning. Specifically in this case, what is extremism, other than being awful?

That question is a brick wall against which our MPs are banging their heads without ever making a dent. I sympathise with their problem. Any definition of extremism can be either commonsensical or all-embracing, but not both.

One definition they are considering is “an ideology that undermines the rights or freedoms of others”. Alas, rather than being dented, the brick wall is getting sturdier. For a need arises to define the definition, which is never easy whenever it contains the word ‘rights’.

These days this nebulous word is used as a politicised description of aspirations and appetites. We are served up any number of rights: to marriage, education, health, development of personality, leisure time, orgasms, warm and loving family or – barring that – warm and loving social services, employment, paternity leave and so forth. Object strenuously to any or all of those, and you may be deemed an extremist.

The definition of extremism currently mooted in Parliament could easily be applied to, say, someone who finds the NHS ridiculous, abortion and euthanasia barbaric, or a full employment law ruinous. And if it can be so applied, it will be – such is the law of modernity that allows no exceptions.

Our parliamentarians state their objective as “cracking down on Islamism and far-right extremism”. That seems to give a free pass to far-left extremism, which the MPs either don’t recognise as objectionable or don’t believe any such thing exists.

Looking across the Channel, France has just enshrined the right to abortion in her constitution, the first country ever to do so. That could easily put anyone who objects to that practice into the rubric of extremism. Yet in half of the American states, the opposite is true: there an extremist is anyone campaigning for abortion on demand.

In Britain, both pro- and anti-abortion groups have been described as extremist, but the overall tendency is unmistakable on this or any other issue.

Anyone who is opposed to transgender ‘rights’, homomarriage, uncontrolled immigration, abortion, euthanasia, vandalism of history, socialism (as in the NHS), ‘liberalism’ (actually left-wing illiberalism), enforced secularisation, expansion of suffrage, promiscuous public spending, ignoring defence of the realm and so on can easily fall under any comprehensive definition of extremism our MPs are likely ever to agree on.

In other words, conservatism, especially the Christian kind, is certain to be the baby thrown out with the bathwater of “Islamism and far-right extremism”. Keeping it personal, I realise to my horror that I’m as extremist as they come. I really ought to denounce myself before others beat me to it.

By contrast, Thangham Debonnaire, Labour culture spokesman, doesn’t have an extremist bone in her body. Everything about her, except her name, is placidly moderate. In that spirit, she demands that the long tradition of playing Rule, Britannia at the Last Night of the Proms be discontinued.

According to Miss Debonnaire, that patriotic anthem is “alienating” to some people who feel their access to culture is thereby being blocked. And culture, according to her, must be “accessible to everyone”, especially those who are deeply offended by that song.

I don’t know if Miss Debonnaire specifically took exception to the line “Britons never, never, never shall be slaves”, but if she didn’t she should. The entire history of Britain, she must believe, is defined by slavery imposed on others. At the same time Britons themselves are slaves to capitalism, which Miss Debonnaire insists must be urgently “fettered”.

To me, she is a far-left extremist, a category that goes unrecognised in Parliament. Miss Debonnaire, on the other hand, must consider anyone like me as a dangerous far-right extremist to be euthanised at the earliest opportunity. Such is the moderate viewpoint.

Now, any reader, especially a British one, must insist that I can only earn the right to criticise other people’s definition of extremism by offering my own that meets all the exacting requirements. That I can’t do and, moreover, no one can.

No definition of extremism or any other political category can ever be all things to all men. One side’s extremist is another side’s man taking a principled stand, and vice versa. If we insist that all sides, and therefore all viewpoints, are equally worthy and valid, then good luck trying to define extremism – you won’t be able to.

Yet our MPs are bound by the vow of liberal egalitarianism. They can’t, for example, say that Christianity isn’t just different from, but better than, Islam, if only because our civilisation was founded as Christendom and not Islamdom. Or that republicanism is a political heresy. Or that – and here I’m stepping on Miss Debonnaire’s toes – that only classical, which is to say real, music should receive government grants.

If our MPs really want to define extremism, they have to choose sides. Either they see themselves as promulgators and defenders of our civilisation or its enemies. Once they’ve made that choice, then and only then will their task become possible.

In fact, it would become easy. For example, I’d define extremism as any fanatical and especially violent expression of hostility to our civilisation.

At this point, any MP trained in logic would demand that I define our civilisation, and I’d be only too happy to oblige. Our civilisation is Christendom, with all our core beliefs, tenets, laws and morality traceable back to the bedrock of our founding religion.

I’m aware of how woefully unhelpful I’m being. No MP sitting on any front or back bench shares my definition of our civilisation and consequently of extremism. In fact, they’d probably regard my definitions themselves as extreme and, if declared too vociferously, extremist. And if by some accidental mutation a few MPs would agree with me, they’ll keep that view to themselves if they wish to remain MPs for a while longer.

That’s their right – as long as they realise that exercising this right makes it impossible for them to come up with any sound and coherent definition of extremism. And if they can’t define it, they can’t really ban it.

They can’t even ban ‘Islamism’, which is only consistently pious Islam, without lumping it together with Christianity, Judaism and, in the long run, conservatism. Anything else would be seen as discrimination, and trust our legislators to give that good word a bad name.