What makes an extremist? A call for violence? The encouragement of discrimination or hatred towards a particular group? A bid to overthrow the apparatus of the state? Or, whoever the government of the day deems so?
According to the Conservative government’s much-derided new definition, extremism is the “promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: (1) negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or 2) undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or (3) intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”
The definition is so broad, and therefore so open to interpretation by the government of the day, as to be ripe for abuse. Most dangerous of all, ideas can now be evidence of extremism rather than actions. “Every attempt to update the definition of extremism has failed because it’s never clear what you’re trying to prevent by defining extremism,” Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, told the BBC. “What we see… is a move away from people who are doing bad things, towards people who think bad things or have a bad ideology.”
This is the stuff of Orwellian nightmares. It has been devised and published by the government without any proper consultation. Violence and hatred are one thing, but intolerance? Vigorous debate, disagreement and freedom of speech are the bedrocks of an open and democratic society. No one has the right to not be offended. Sometimes, the truth is offensive and uncomfortable.
Michael Gove, the communities secretary, who had the unenviable task of explaining the government’s position, insists the new definition is needed in part because of a rise in extremism witnessed since the 7 October attacks on southern Israel. While it is true that incidents motivated by hate of Jews and Muslims have increased in Britain since the murder by Hamas of at least 1,200 Israelis, and the subsequent onslaught on Gaza by Israeli armed forces, it is hard to see how a new definition solves that problem.
When presenting the legislation to parliament, Gove stressed what the new definition would not do. It would not affect gender critical campaigners or trans activists; it wouldn’t target those with conservative religious beliefs; it wouldn’t impact environmental protest groups, or those “exercising their proper right to free speech”. It’s difficult to see how he can make such assurances, when any future government could interpret such a definition in very different ways.
Gove named five organisations he described as Islamist or far-right that would likely be branded extremists: two far-right organisations, the British National Socialist Movement and the Patriotic Alternative; and three Islamist organisations, the Muslim Association of Britain, Cage and Mend. The government will announce more groups in the coming weeks, but is already facing threats of legal action from those that have been named. Several have challenged Gove to repeat the allegations without parliamentary privilege so they can take legal action.
Being on such a list for any organisation will undoubtedly have a “a chilling impact more widely on their place in society, from financial services to the media,” as Conservative MP Kit Malthouse has pointed out. Libel action seems probable alongside any judicial review already being worked up, not least because it would appear that there will be no alternative route, away from the courts, for challenging the label of “extremist”.
Aside from these worrying implications, my overriding question is: what is the point of this new definition?
We are told that organisations or individuals added to any new list of “extremists” won’t be criminalised as they are under terrorism legislation. Instead, they will be prevented from receiving government funding and barred from any contact with the government. But even that seems to be a half-truth. The Times reported confirmation from sources inside Gove’s own department that groups listed will still be able to respond to public consultations, which the paper describes as “a vital process of formulating government policy”. Is this just a populist ploy for votes, sowing seeds of division?
In one way, the Conservatives have pulled off a master-stroke here. They have succeeded in achieving something they have failed so often to do during 14 years in power: unite those of all political persuasions – against them.
During his statement to the Commons on 14 March, Michael Gove faced criticism from across the house. The archbishops of Canterbury and York have both warned the new definition risks disproportionately affecting Muslim communities and also threatens freedom of speech. London Mayor Sadiq Khan and Conservative peer Sayeeda Warsi agree with them. So too do three former home secretaries and a raft of experts who advise the government on different aspects of extremism.
The Sunak government is right that Britain has witnessed an alarming rise in hate in recent months. It requires a serious effort to challenge and contain it. To stand any chance of success, it will require both clarity of thought and consensus. The government’s latest attempt has neither.
[See also: Ousting Rishi Sunak would make a bad situation worse]
Content from our partners
Related
