Countering extremism: defending free speech
Source: gov.uk (2025-08-17)

This collection of essays, written by distinguished writers, journalists and thinkers, explores the intricate balance between protecting freedom of speech, upholding the rule of law and combating extremism.

Foreword by Robin Simcox, former Commissioner for Countering Extremism

I commissioned this series of independent essays for three reasons. One, freedom of speech matters greatly to me. Two, I think it is under sustained attack. Three, counter-extremism work too often forms part of the offensive.

As the government’s independent adviser on extremism, my vision was to craft the Commission for Countering Extremism into a centre of excellence to aid government in fixing the thorniest extremism challenges it faces.

It was a vital task: counter-extremism can and should be a vital part of the response to terrorism and the ideological challenge posed by those seeking to undermine the values (including free expression) that make this such a special country to live.

However, it was a vision I had to implement with a conscious need to also robustly defend free speech. By ensuring that countering extremism did not become so conceptually loose that it extended to stifling political dissent or freedom of expression with those we disagree with – even extremists.

I hoped to shift a perception that I know can exist around the counter-extremism field writ large: that while it may pay lip service to defending free speech, in practice it is too often a cudgel by which to enforce ideological and intellectual conformity. That it inevitably leads to more restrictive laws and ultimately more censorship. That it obscures systemic challenges, rather than addressing them.

Yet countering extremism and advancing free speech must go hand-in-hand. Where free speech thrives, so too does human liberty. After all, things we now know to be scientific fact were once considered heretical or blasphemous.

So we should not just defend free speech out of habit. We defend it because freedom of expression is the route by which we discover the truth; because testing conflicting opinion can be challenging but ultimately makes our discourse healthier; and because we learn to accept and indeed cherish those with differing viewpoints. The alternative – a coerced, ‘acceptable’ consensus of the day – offers a bleak vision of the future.

Not everyone who reads these essays will agree with all the arguments advanced. By commissioning the thoughts of nine writers, journalists, and thinkers, it would be surprising if anyone did. A diverse group of contributors was chosen to ensure a broad range of perspectives, reflecting the complexity and nuance of the subject matter. That is, in part, the point of this publication. However, I hope that even in disagreement, these essays will force you to sharpen your own arguments.

By opening up these lines of enquiry, we can ensure that a sustainable approach to counter-extremism coexists with defending one of our most treasured values.

July 2025

These essays have been independently commissioned. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the UK Government or the Commission for Countering Extremism.

These essays were commissioned to present a diverse range of perspectives from authors with contrasting or conflicting opinions on this issue. They are provided to contribute to this vital discussion and do not imply agreement or endorsement by any associated organisations or individuals.