“The abyss doesn’t stare back. It winks.” – Kresley Cole

The UK Conservatives have published their new definition of “extremism” in their continuing attempts to lock down any possibility of dissent against their increasingly authoritarian rule (the hope that that rule will only last another few months as an election looms can be quelled by the fact that the UK Labour Party isn’t particularly likely to roll back on any of these measures.

However, as with many attempts to capture as many “inconveniences” as possible under the new definition, the party has run the risk of putting itself on the list of extremists too.

To understand the situation we have to look at the definition of “extremism” as presented.

I’m going to give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt and say that their ideology is not based on hatred, simply because to do that to a democratically elected party or politician does require a very high bar. However I shall not give them such a pass on their ideology being based on violence. Indeed their promotion of their right to launch nuclear weapons at civilian targets without provocation is promotion of the highest form of violence imaginable. And the violence they advocate against groups even within the UK, such as those they deliberately impoverished and killed during their regime. And their intolerance of other groups such as the most desperately displaced people on Earth is an outright election talking point for them.

So if we accept that the UK Government uses its platform for an extreme ideology then which of the three categories does it fall into? Potentially all three.

1. My saga of tracking the Conservatives’ attempts to negate or destroy fundamental rights and freedoms goes right back to the start of this blog. It has been a long-held Shibboleth of the party to try to pull the UK out of the European Convention of Human Rights, not so that they can scrap human rights entirely but so that they can remove YOUR rights at their whim the moment you become an inconvenience to them. If anything, this is an even more extreme position than scrapping rights entirely because at least in the latter case there would still be equality under what little law remained.

2. The Conservatives have on multiple occasions sought to undermine the UK’s Parliamentary democracy. The many attempts to pull power away from Parliament and into the Executive have been long documented by folk like David Allen Green and the case highlighted in Parliament and in the press was when Boris Johnson lied to the Queen and unlawfully shut Parliament down to avoid a key Brexit vote. Other measures like stripping powers from devolved Parliaments, stripping voting rights from residents and placing barriers to vote that discriminate against folk who don’t tend to vote for the party are all attacks on democracy too.

3. From seeding and not refuting headlines declaring judges to be “Enemies of the People“, through taking money from sources who have made comments that the PM himself has described as racist, to actively creating a “hostile environment” towards migrants, the Conservatives have without doubt created a permissive environment for intolerance, violence and hatred.

So yes, by the Conservatives own metrics it can be argued that they themselves are an extremist organisation who should be denied public funding or government support (which I’m sure would make being the government slightly awkward).

Of course, if I’m going to make such statements then shouldn’t I judge myself too?

I certainly do not try to negate rights or freedoms – my firm belief is that society is only as resilient as its weakest member – this is the reason I am literally wearing the Common Weal logo “All of Us First” as I write this (well, that and it was next in line in the t-shirt drawer…) and I’ve staunchly advocated for the rights and freedoms of political voices including those in parties I am vehemently opposed to to a degree that goes beyond even those parties themselves.

However, on point 2. I most certainly am guilty. The UK’s system of parliamentary democracy is an anathema to free and fair democratic rights. Its lower house is elected by the least democratic means possible without actual fraud.

The upper house, the House of Lords, is even less democratic and the concept of hereditary power or power for life, appointed on a whim (or due to favours to the whimsy), should always be opposed. One of the most important speeches underpinning the principles of democracy was uttered by Tony Benn – himself someone who turned down hereditary power for life in order to stay true to his own principles of elected democracy. I hold true to his words.

And, of course, the highest power in the UK’s “democracy” is one based on the principle that a single family has Magic Blood™ and that this and this alone qualifies them to rule. Not to mention that the UK’s “liberal” democracy currently denies the right of self-determination to millions of voters based, again, on the whim and permission of a single person.

So yes, I oppose and seek to overturn the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy (for it to be replaced by several even more liberal democracies) and my literal job is to create a permissive environment and to encourage others to follow me in that campaign.

The difference in my case is that I do not campaign out of hatred or intolerance and I actively seek a path of peace and non-violence in all things (give me a shout if you’d like me to visit your (non-party) campaign group for a training course in non-violent escalating pressure campaigning that I run with Artivism.scot).

The risk remains though that I and Scottish independence campaigners like me may be declared to be “extremists”. Indeed, the risk of this is part of the reason that the Government has already watered down its policy here. Gove wanted his definition of extremism to be placed on a statutory footing and extremist groups outright banned but it was pointed out that it could very well apply to legitimate political parties like the SNP (or, as I say, to his own) and so it was softened to merely the withdrawal of public money and that the definition would be “guidance”. However, the latter change is possibly worse as it now creates an element of subjectiveness. It is now possible for extremist groups to be permitted and tolerated so long as they are sufficiently loyal to the government and don’t step too far out of line (that is, they don’t create inconvenient news headlines) whereas someone like myself could exist in a state of limbo until the moment that my peaceful, non-violent campaign starts to become an inconvenience to the State.

And here we come to the very core of the motivation behind this legislation. Power. The difference between someone like me and someone like Michael Gove is power. His extremism policy isn’t designed to remove power from the already powerful. It is designed to do the opposite. It is not designed to punch up at injustice, but to punch down and create injustice.

So have the Conservatives outlawed themselves?

Not while they remain in power.