Here we are again with a government talking about laws to control ‘extremism’, a state of mind defined by failure to show enough respect for ‘British values’.

These ‘values’ apparently include ’democracy’ and ‘the rule of law’.

Please see my comments on the previous attempt to move in this direction, including alarming plans for the preliminary vetting of student meetings, laudably scuttled by (among others) Nick Clegg, whose good deeds should be acknowledged http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/01/dont-like-the-pc-mob-well-now-that-makes-you-a-terror-threat.html

In this article I pointed out : ‘Institutions will be obliged to promote ‘British values’. These are defined as ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs’. ‘Vocal and active opposition’ to any of these is now officially described as ‘extremism’.

Given authority’s general scorn for conservative Christianity, and its quivering, obsequious fear of Islam, it is easy to see how the second half will be applied in practice. As for ‘democracy’, plenty of people (me included) are not at all sure we have it, and wouldn’t be that keen on it if we did.’

A few months earlier, I had argued that the nebulous concept of ‘extremism’ could not possibly be of any use in legal or political matters, having no objective meaning. I suspect the ‘definition’ I quote above was cooked up in response to such criticisms.

Here, in any case, was my argument in June last year:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/06/the-word-extremism-does-not-mean-anything.html

…and I stand absolutely by it now.

I often ask readers to answer this question.: How do you think a totalitarian regime could or would be installed in a free society such as ours? Is it more likely that it will arrive in some thunderclap, as black-uniformed fanatics seize the state, or that it will grow in our midst by small and popular increments, introduced on the pretext of saving us from a supposed ‘terrorist’ threat?

It remains absolutely the case that, with the clear exception of incitement to violence, speech should be free. The law is involved only after a crime has been committed and in a free society cannot and must be used to pre-approve publication or speech. Stifling free speech is the staircase down to slavery. The moment we are having our speeches and articles scanned for ‘extremism’ by policemen we are out of the world of freedom and deep in the territory of tyranny ( Social Democrat public meetings in 19th century Germany could only be held in the presence of a uniformed police officer monitoring the speeches – do you want this?).

There are good practical reasons for this as well. If political fanatics are permitted to organise and publish in the open, we will be much better able to know what they are doing and to observe their interaction with actual men of violence. If we seek to restrict the expression of opinion by law, we will merely ensure that these interactions will take place in secret, where we cannot observe them.

I am shocked that any educated British person is not instantly revolted by this, as I am. This is one of the reasons why I noted the other day that the country I grew up in was both more honest and better-educated than the one we now live in. I don’t suppose even one member of the current Cabinet even knows who John Hampden was or what the Trial of the Seven Bishops was, or why it matters, or has more than the vaguest idea of the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights and the whole thrilling period of our national history during which this country decisively rejected arbitrary power, secret courts, torture, and threw out continental autocracy in favour of liberty under the law.

‘British values’ indeed. ‘British values’ might as well be a taste for instant mashed potato, annual holidays in the sun, bad TV comedy and gassy lager.

These ‘anti-terrorist’ oafs know no poetry and no history and they do not love their country, indeed they barely know where and what it is .

How about this : ‘And whereas also by the statute called 'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseized of his freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.’

That’s a British value, if you like. As is this ; ‘when complaints are freely heard, deeply consider'd and speedily reform'd, then is the utmost bound of civill liberty attain'd, that wise men looke for.’

And this, too ;

‘It is not to be thought of that the Flood

Of British freedom, which, to the open sea

Of the world's praise, from dark antiquity

Hath flowed, "with pomp of waters, unwithstood,"

Roused though it be full often to a mood

Which spurns the check of salutary bands,

That this most famous Stream in bogs and sands

Should perish; and to evil and to good

Be lost for ever. In our halls is hung

Armoury of the invincible Knights of old:

We must be free or die, who speak the tongue

That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals hold

Which Milton held.—In every thing we are sprung

Of Earth's first blood, have titles manifold.’

Or something like that, anyway. Chuck it, May.