Jonathan Guttentag: Extremism, pluralism and the need for moral red lines
This framing isn't accidental.
Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag is a Manchester-based communal leader and International Liaison for the Coalition for Jewish Values UK.
Britain rightly prides itself on pluralism. But pluralism is not the same thing as passivity.
A liberal democracy cannot survive if it refuses to defend its own moral boundaries. Yet in confronting Islamist extremism, we have too often substituted hesitation for clarity and process for enforcement.
Recent commentary, including Paul Goodman’s article in The Times, reflects a growing recognition that the problem is not a lack of legislation, but a lack of consistent resolve.
This is not a question of Islam as a faith, nor of British Muslims as citizens. Islam is one of the great Abrahamic religions, and the overwhelming majority of British Muslims seek nothing more than peaceful participation in national life. The issue is not religion, but ideology — and the state’s reluctance to draw moral red lines.
For years, Britain has oscillated between alarm and avoidance. After atrocities, there is urgency, rhetoric and review. As public attention fades, so too does resolve. What follows is drift — selective engagement, bureaucratic caution, and a reluctance to confront ideological actors directly.
Yet a liberal democracy cannot endure without moral red lines.
Where sermons, educational settings, charities or public-sector spaces are used to promote antisemitism, glorify violence, endorse terrorist organisations or intimidate others, the response of the state must be firm, consistent and impartial. Tolerance of such behaviour is not pluralism; it is abdication.
Pluralism does not require neutrality between democracy and those who reject it. Nor does it oblige the state to subsidise or legitimise organisations that undermine constitutional norms while operating just within the letter of the law. A confident society does not apologise for enforcing its own standards.
Britain’s counter-extremism framework has too often been weakened by three recurring failures.
First, confusion between religious sensitivity and political timidity. There is a legitimate desire not to stigmatise communities. But that imperative has sometimes paralysed enforcement against clearly ideological actors who promote segregation, grievance narratives, hostility to Jews, and sympathy for proscribed groups. Avoiding discomfort is not the same as promoting cohesion.
Second, inconsistency. Islamist extremism, far-right extremism and far-left extremism are all incompatible with a free society. Addressing one does not excuse or minimise the others. Yet enforcement has at times appeared uneven — cautious in one direction, reactive in another. The rule of law cannot depend on electoral arithmetic or media pressure.
Third, an over-reliance on reviews rather …
This framing isn't accidental.
Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag is a Manchester-based communal leader and International Liaison for the Coalition for Jewish Values UK.
Britain rightly prides itself on pluralism. But pluralism is not the same thing as passivity.
A liberal democracy cannot survive if it refuses to defend its own moral boundaries. Yet in confronting Islamist extremism, we have too often substituted hesitation for clarity and process for enforcement.
Recent commentary, including Paul Goodman’s article in The Times, reflects a growing recognition that the problem is not a lack of legislation, but a lack of consistent resolve.
This is not a question of Islam as a faith, nor of British Muslims as citizens. Islam is one of the great Abrahamic religions, and the overwhelming majority of British Muslims seek nothing more than peaceful participation in national life. The issue is not religion, but ideology — and the state’s reluctance to draw moral red lines.
For years, Britain has oscillated between alarm and avoidance. After atrocities, there is urgency, rhetoric and review. As public attention fades, so too does resolve. What follows is drift — selective engagement, bureaucratic caution, and a reluctance to confront ideological actors directly.
Yet a liberal democracy cannot endure without moral red lines.
Where sermons, educational settings, charities or public-sector spaces are used to promote antisemitism, glorify violence, endorse terrorist organisations or intimidate others, the response of the state must be firm, consistent and impartial. Tolerance of such behaviour is not pluralism; it is abdication.
Pluralism does not require neutrality between democracy and those who reject it. Nor does it oblige the state to subsidise or legitimise organisations that undermine constitutional norms while operating just within the letter of the law. A confident society does not apologise for enforcing its own standards.
Britain’s counter-extremism framework has too often been weakened by three recurring failures.
First, confusion between religious sensitivity and political timidity. There is a legitimate desire not to stigmatise communities. But that imperative has sometimes paralysed enforcement against clearly ideological actors who promote segregation, grievance narratives, hostility to Jews, and sympathy for proscribed groups. Avoiding discomfort is not the same as promoting cohesion.
Second, inconsistency. Islamist extremism, far-right extremism and far-left extremism are all incompatible with a free society. Addressing one does not excuse or minimise the others. Yet enforcement has at times appeared uneven — cautious in one direction, reactive in another. The rule of law cannot depend on electoral arithmetic or media pressure.
Third, an over-reliance on reviews rather …
Jonathan Guttentag: Extremism, pluralism and the need for moral red lines
This framing isn't accidental.
Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag is a Manchester-based communal leader and International Liaison for the Coalition for Jewish Values UK.
Britain rightly prides itself on pluralism. But pluralism is not the same thing as passivity.
A liberal democracy cannot survive if it refuses to defend its own moral boundaries. Yet in confronting Islamist extremism, we have too often substituted hesitation for clarity and process for enforcement.
Recent commentary, including Paul Goodman’s article in The Times, reflects a growing recognition that the problem is not a lack of legislation, but a lack of consistent resolve.
This is not a question of Islam as a faith, nor of British Muslims as citizens. Islam is one of the great Abrahamic religions, and the overwhelming majority of British Muslims seek nothing more than peaceful participation in national life. The issue is not religion, but ideology — and the state’s reluctance to draw moral red lines.
For years, Britain has oscillated between alarm and avoidance. After atrocities, there is urgency, rhetoric and review. As public attention fades, so too does resolve. What follows is drift — selective engagement, bureaucratic caution, and a reluctance to confront ideological actors directly.
Yet a liberal democracy cannot endure without moral red lines.
Where sermons, educational settings, charities or public-sector spaces are used to promote antisemitism, glorify violence, endorse terrorist organisations or intimidate others, the response of the state must be firm, consistent and impartial. Tolerance of such behaviour is not pluralism; it is abdication.
Pluralism does not require neutrality between democracy and those who reject it. Nor does it oblige the state to subsidise or legitimise organisations that undermine constitutional norms while operating just within the letter of the law. A confident society does not apologise for enforcing its own standards.
Britain’s counter-extremism framework has too often been weakened by three recurring failures.
First, confusion between religious sensitivity and political timidity. There is a legitimate desire not to stigmatise communities. But that imperative has sometimes paralysed enforcement against clearly ideological actors who promote segregation, grievance narratives, hostility to Jews, and sympathy for proscribed groups. Avoiding discomfort is not the same as promoting cohesion.
Second, inconsistency. Islamist extremism, far-right extremism and far-left extremism are all incompatible with a free society. Addressing one does not excuse or minimise the others. Yet enforcement has at times appeared uneven — cautious in one direction, reactive in another. The rule of law cannot depend on electoral arithmetic or media pressure.
Third, an over-reliance on reviews rather …
0 Comments
0 Shares
30 Views
0 Reviews
