Given her attitude towards Muslims in general, her desire to strip Muslim British citizens and drone attack them, her love for extraordinarily rendering Muslims without technically rendering them, banning MI6 approved counter-extremism Muslim speakers, discriminatorily handling anti-Muslim attacks until it is brought to her attention, it is quite clear, despite her non-specific rhetoric against “foreigners” and “immigrants” and “extremists”, she is by action referring to Muslims. She hates Muslims so much she wants to, in tune with the neocon extremist Douglas Murray, remove the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as well as the Human Rights Act 1998, which prevents her from conducting various illegalities, such as lack of fair trial, torture and even death.
So, she is a through and through Muslim hater. I am not one to recourse to defining extremism, but I can say with the above in mind, she drives a horse and cart into the territory of extremism. However I am a Muslim so I am easily afforded the label of bias. Let’s examine what the likes of Theresa May et al would define extremism as:
Extremism is vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our deﬁnition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas
The above definition is from the latest PREVENT policy document on gagging and persecuting Muslims, sorry, I mean tackling extremism. An excellent and shocking critical analysis of its implications can be viewed here. I am not going down that road, however. I am envisaging perhaps a utopic scenario where everyone is equal before the law and by extension, policy (no wait is that how it is now?) It is time to subject mama May to this definition.
Vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy
A healthy democracy as we are taught in law school, requires Human Rights and rule of law to tie the hands of the government against power trips. The UN website in the section of Democracy states:
The values of freedom, respect for human rights and the principle of holding periodic and genuine elections by universal suffrage are essential elements of democracy.
Theresa has openly called for the Human Rights Act to be binned and the jurisdiction of the ECtHR to be ignored. She is seeking to remove the very protection against governmental abuses which she herself has been perpetrating quietly. If this is her state with these protection mechanisms in place, imagine the consequences when she is let loose on Britain without a leash!
Consequently it follows that she has vocally, actively and even campaigned for the opposition of fundamental British values and is therefore an extremist.
The Rule of Law
The rule of law does not have a precise definition, but does carry a broad set of principles which encompass the subjection of everyone, official or not, to the law. The rule presupposes the protection of liberties against arbitrary abuse of power by the state and particularly in A. V. Dicey’s conception of it, also enforces the notion that all are equal before the law and the law is to be equally applied.
In 2012, when Theresa May issued Immigration Rules which in essence circumvented Article 8 (right to family life) so that she could deport people she did not like (Muslims), she was in essence telling the judges how to interpret Article 8. She misrepresented existing law (Pepper v Hart) to achieve this effect. A detailed analysis of how she did this can be had here. The reason this violates the rule of law is because by stipulating judicial deference to guidelines which received ad hoc Parliamentary approval to assert the Government’s policies, there is a reduction in the area in which courts can hold the executive to account. For the uninitiated, this essentially means she is assaulting the rule of law by reducing what is justiciable before the court.
This is not all however. In the context of the Human Rights Act, she stated,
“some judges chose to ignore Parliament and go on putting the law on the side of foreign criminals instead of the public”
Thus she was calling for the judges to ignore a statute out of political expediency. One of the principles of the rule of law is that the law is applied to everyone equally, with an independent judiciary. By Theresa criticising the judges that they apply law (equally), it follows that she is calling for the opposite, that the law not be applied to all, equally. Furthermore by her interfering with how the judge should apply Acts of Parliament, she is threatening the independence of the judiciary.
Theresa May, by actively opposing the Rule of Law in accordance with government policy definition, is an extremist.
Theresa has declared war on Human Rights and indeed in many cases violated them. She also wants the jurisdiction of the ECtHR removed through a repeal. The irony is that the legal document which Theresa May wants to remove the jurisdiction of is the very same one which was formulated with full UK support pretty much after WWII, and after the genocide and torture of the Jews. British MP and lawyer David Maxwell-Fyfe, fresh off the Nuremberg trials as a prosecutor was a leading figure in the Council of Europe in drafting the legal instrument. Is the attitude of the current British government regressing towards the Nazi Germany era? If it is in the hands of May and her cohorts then perhaps so. She wants to in effect curtail individual liberty. And if she cannot do it through the courts, she will strip nationals of their citizenship and ensure their liberties are breached elsewhere.
By threatening the liberties of individuals, she falls into the PREVENT definition of extremism. She is an extremist.
Mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs
This one is a bit tricky. Her rhetoric has never really targeted Islam per se, only government concocted versions of Islam, such as radicalist and extremist versions of Islam. The type of extremism she is currently being scrutinised against. What can be said with certainty is that given her discriminatory handling of various anti-Muslim attacks on individuals and masaajid, and her blatant discrimination towards Talha Ahsan in comparison with the case of Gary McKinnon, there is more than an indication towards an intolerance of people who follow Islam.
Theresa May in here Forward to the PREVENT Strategy Review document stated:
“…we will not work with extremist organisations that oppose our values of universal human rights, equality before the law, democracy and full participation in our society…”
Theresa May has vocally and actively opposed fundamental British values, including democracy, rule of law, definitely individual liberty and in a covert way tolerance of different faiths. She will have a seriously hard time working with herself and her government then. She is by her own definition, an extremist.
She, in practice and practical implication, has done more to damage to British values such as human rights, independence of the courts, rule of law and tolerance than any Islamist radicalist extremist. Just as PREVENT has in effect targeted Islam for its control, censorship and restriction activities, she needs to be controlled, censored and restricted. Vocalists of the ideology she represents such as Michael Gove and Douglas Murray, in line with government strategy should be deradicalised, disrupted from speaking in Parliament, have their publications banned and their children taken into care to avoid psychological abuse. Educational institutions, charities, healthcare services, the criminal justice system as well as PREVENT officers will need to work together to assist in the effort to identify (read “spy on people”) potential Theresa-esque extremists.
British values are indeed under threat. This threat is from Theresa May the extremist.