Counter extremism strategies are failing thanks to the government’s ‘slow and unfocused’ approach

The story told in the report from the Commission for Countering Extremism is profoundly disturbing. That far-right activists should “deliberately distort the truth to persuade their audience to adopt discriminatory and hateful attitudes”, as we report here, is a scar on our society and the commission deserves all the credit for exposing it.

Indeed, the commission deserves credit for its work more generally. Its three more recent reports prior to this study highlight different aspects of the problem: both the ways in which extremism is eating into normal, decent behaviour, and how we might counter this corrosive influence. One was on the violent, extremist tactics of the far left. The second was on meditative dialogue as a way of offsetting extremism. The third was an overview of the far right.

Part of the value of the commission is that it does not look at terrorism as such, or indeed how terrorism might be tackled. That is the responsibility of other parts of the government machine. Terrorism is an outward manifestation of extremism, and of course needs the most vigorous and effective response. The public rightly demands that. However, the job of the commission is to look at root causes, not outward manifestations: where extreme views start, not where they sometimes – appallingly – end up. The research it is sponsoring is a crucial first step along the path to the goal of a more harmonious society.

Until you understand how extremist views arise and are encouraged, you cannot hope to counter them effectively.

The commission is tasked with the job of assessing the current responses to extremism and will advise on further measures. Meanwhile, there are clearly steps that we as a society can take to lean against this destructive gale blowing across the land.

One is to be aware that words matter and that people in public positions have a particular responsibility to choose their words carefully. Much of the language in parliament in recent months has been extreme; some has been hateful. Eventually, MPs will have to rebuild the way they debate, and find a more harmonious way of discussing the issues on which they quite reasonably differ.

A second way forward will be in the media. This is not the place to defend or attack the press, or to dig into the ways in which social media has helped undermine hitherto accepted levels of courtesy. What is worth noting is that all developed countries are faced with the same problem: how to establish and enforce socially-accepted rules for an entirely new situation. We have to learn from each other how best to do it, adapting what seems to work to local identities.

Third, education will inevitably play a central role. We should be careful loading more burdens onto schools but it is certainly worth explaining concepts of citizenship to young people in a pluralistic society.

Perhaps the hardest thing for us all to accept is not just that there are rules of behaviour and language that we have to observe, but that those rules change over time – and will continue to change in the future. The purpose of the commission is not to establish rules as to what is acceptable and what is not. Rather, it is to identify the most serious aspects of extremism and suggest how these should be dealt with. This report on far-right activism is exactly the sort of information we need as a first step along the winding way towards a more harmonious society.