The British government published a new definition of extremism on Thursday, which it plans to use to cut ties or funding to groups deemed to have crossed the line, but critics fear it could curtail activists’ rights and limit the freedom of speech.
Michael Gove, a senior cabinet minister, said in a statement that the move was intended to “protect democratic values” by being “clear and precise in identifying the dangers posed by extremism”.
Some advocacy groups and legal experts greeted the announcement with concern, warning that it could affect the rights of those the government deems to meet the definition. The only way to challenge such a decision is likely to be through the courts.
The initiative has also sparked a wider debate about how, ahead of a general election due early next year, British politicians are choosing to deal with domestic tensions that have risen since Hamas’ attacks on Israel on October 7 and Israel’s subsequent bombing of Gaza. Strip.
Even before details of the new extremism proposals were made public, they had drawn criticism from rights groups and concern from three former Tory home secretaries whose remit included national security, who warned against using the issue of extremism for political gain. .
Church of England leaders also weighed in. The archbishop of Canterbury — Justin Welby, who is the head of the church and a peer in the House of Lords — and the archbishop of York said in a statement issued Tuesday that the new definition “not only inadvertently threatens free speech, but the right to worship and peaceful protest, hard-won things that are the fabric of a civilized society.”
They added: “In particular, it risks disproportionately targeting Muslim communities, which already experience rising levels of hatred and abuse.”
Under the new plan, extremism will be defined as “the promotion or promotion of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance” that aims “to deny or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. or to undermine, subvert or replace the United Kingdom’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights’ or deliberately create an ‘enabling environment’ for others to do so.
In its statement, the government said its new definition was not statutory and would have no effect on existing criminal law. But he added that, after the new definition is published, “the government will undertake a robust process to assess groups for extremism against the definition, which will then inform decisions about government involvement and funding.”
Critics said it was this element – the idea that any government in power could blacklist groups it deems extremist and bar them from meeting with government agencies or officials or receiving taxpayer funding – which could threaten freedom of speech and civil liberties.
David Anderson, a senior barrister and former independent reviewer of the government’s terrorism legislation, told the BBC there were many questions that still needed to be answered about the policy.
“The definition remains extremely broad,” he said. “For example, it catches people who promote an ideology that negates the fundamental rights of others. One can imagine both sides of the trans debate jumping on it.”
Mr Anderson, who is also a member of the House of Lords, said he was not comforted by assurances that the definition only related to interactions with the government. “I think you’re also potentially affecting a lot of people by labeling them as extremists,” he said, adding that it “potentially affects a lot of people’s liberties and reputations.”
Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International’s executive director, described the plan as a “dangerously sweeping approach to labeling groups and individuals as ‘extremists'”, adding in a statement that it was “another setback” to human rights.
“This attempt to stigmatize legitimate, peaceful political activity takes us even further down the road to authoritarianism,” he added.
Some conservative lawmakers also warned against any measures that could threaten free speech. Miriam Cates, a Conservative MP, told The Times of London that she believed radical Islamism was the most significant threat to Britain’s national security, but that it would have to be tackled “by properly enforcing our existing laws and banning of groups with ties to terrorism. .”
“In a pluralistic democracy, there is, of course, a wide range of views that many of us would consider extreme,” he added. “But the state should only intervene if there is a real threat of bodily harm. Otherwise, we are eroding the fundamental freedoms of speech, association, expression and religion.”
The government sought to address those concerns in its statement on Thursday, saying the plan was “not about silencing those with private and peaceful beliefs – it will not affect freedom of speech, which will always be protected”.
The announcement did not include a list of groups deemed to have violated the new definition, although the government is expected to announce one in the coming weeks.
The initiative follows a speech by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak this month in which he spoke of “a shocking rise in extremist disorder and crime” in Britain since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. Mr Sunak appealed to people in Britain to unite “to fight the forces of division and defeat this poison”.
Mr Sunak had previously warned bluntly at a meeting of senior police officers that “mob rule is replacing democratic rule”.
Mr Gove said in his statement that “the spread of extremist ideologies has become increasingly clear since the attacks of 7 October and poses a real risk to the safety of our citizens and our democracy”. He added: “This is the work of far-right and Islamist extremists who seek to separate Muslims from the rest of society and create division within Muslim communities.”
The new definition updates that outlined in a government counter-extremism strategy known as Prevention. It defines extremism as “the voice or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual freedom and mutual respect and tolerance of different religions and beliefs”. Calling for the death of members of the armed forces was also included in the definition.
