Jonathan Guttentag: Extremism, pluralism and the need for moral red lines

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 than implementation. Britain does not lack legislation. We have laws addressing incitement, support for terrorism, harassment and discrimination. We have charity regulation. We have safeguarding duties. The question is not whether powers exist, but whether they are used consistently and without fear or favour.

From the perspective of Coalition for Jewish Values UK, several principles are essential if public confidence is to be restored.

Public institutions — schools, hospitals, prisons, universities and local authorities — must be neutral and safe spaces, free from intimidation and sectarian coercion. No pupil should feel unsafe because of their Jewish identity. No university campus should tolerate open endorsement of proscribed organisations. No publicly funded body should quietly outsource moral authority to groups that undermine democratic norms.

Charitable status, public funding and access to ministers are privileges, not entitlements. They must be contingent on basic standards of conduct. Where organisations repeatedly platform extremist rhetoric, promote antisemitic tropes or blur the line between activism and legitimisation of violence, consequences should follow — transparently and proportionately.

Clarity of language is also indispensable. Islamism is not synonymous with Islam. It is a political ideology that seeks to order society under a particular interpretation of religious authority, often hostile to pluralism and liberal democracy. Pretending this distinction is too delicate to articulate only strengthens those who exploit ambiguity.

A democratic state can respect religious liberty while rejecting theocratic political projects. Indeed, the defence of religious liberty depends upon that distinction. British Muslims who wish to practise their faith peacefully are ill-served when the state fails to confront ideological actors who claim to speak in their name.

The Jewish community’s experience is instructive. British Jews are deeply committed to pluralism and flourish in an open society. But when antisemitism is tolerated — whether on the far Right, within radical left movements, or in Islamist networks — it is rarely an isolated phenomenon. It is often a warning sign of democratic erosion. Historically, societies that struggle to defend Jews from ideological hostility struggle to defend liberal norms more broadly.

For Conservatives in particular, this should not be peripheral.

Ordered liberty depends on moral boundaries. A nation is not defined solely by markets or administrative competence, but by shared civic standards and the impartial rule of law. Where those standards are eroded incrementally — through intimidation, ideological capture of institutions or selective enforcement — the damage is cumulative.

What is required now is not another buried review, nor a temporary initiative designed to quiet headlines. It is a cross-cutting framework that restores confidence that Britain can be both pluralistic and serious.

Such a framework would include:

• Consistent enforcement of existing extremism and terrorism legislation.
• Clear conditionality for public funding and charitable status.
• Transparency in government engagement with community organisations.
• Protection of public institutions as ideologically neutral spaces.
• Equal application of standards across Islamist, far-right and far-left extremism alike.

None of this is radical. It is simply the application of equal standards.

Britain can be tolerant without being naive. It can defend religious freedom without indulging political extremism. It can welcome diversity while insisting on common civic norms.

But it cannot sustain those goods indefinitely without drawing clear moral red lines — and enforcing them.

A confident democracy enforces its standards not in spite of pluralism, but in order to preserve it.