The UK authorities has unveiled its new definition of extremism, however has raised extra questions than it has answered within the course of.
Extremism is now outlined as “the promotion or development of an ideology based mostly on violence, hatred or intolerance” that goals to “negate or destroy the elemental rights and freedoms of others” or “undermine, overturn or exchange the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”. The definition additionally makes reference to those that “deliberately create a permissive atmosphere for others to attain” these goals.
Far from being “extra exact”, as promised, the early indicators are that this new definition will show to be as contentious and controversial as its predecessor. There are many issues that don’t make sense in regards to the authorities’s announcement. Here are only a few.
1. It’s a response to protests, however has nothing to do with them
Prior to the disclosing, Michael Gove, the communities secretary, stated the brand new definition was a particular response “to the rise within the quantity of antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred that we’ve seen on our streets” since October 7 final yr. The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, spoke a few “surprising enhance in extremist disruption and criminality” and the the necessity for a more durable strategy. Others speculated in regards to the potential criminality of participating in sure chants at protests.
The new definition, nonetheless, doesn’t relate to any of this. Instead, as Gove informed Sky News, the brand new definition will solely be utilized by authorities departments and officers to make sure they aren’t inadvertently offering a platform, funding or legitimacy to these it believes to be “extremist”. More than the rest, he went on, the brand new definition is “about ensuring that authorities makes use of its powers and its cash in a clever manner”. So the brand new definition has nothing to do with what we have been informed it did.
2. It isn’t a legislation however confers nice energy
Something notable in regards to the new definition is that it’s non-statutory. It just isn’t a legislation and won’t result in any modifications in current legal legislation. Nor will it afford any new powers to assist with the policing of protests – or certainly the rest.
This state of affairs doesn’t simply imply the definition fails so as to add worth in a authorized sense, additionally it is troubling from a democratic perspective. Jonathan Hall KC, the federal government’s unbiased reviewer of state menace laws, has stated the brand new definition implies that selections about which teams are labelled extremist will now be made by “ministerial decree” alone. No safeguards are in place to stop ministers and there’s no enchantment course of for anybody who feels they’ve been wrongly labelled an extremist.
The means of labelling extremists due to this fact has the very actual potential to be politicised and weaponised. In essence, the federal government will have the ability to use the brand new definition to cancel these it sees match to, no matter whether or not they occur to be precise extremists or whether or not the federal government simply desires to silence their criticisms. That native authorities, public our bodies, and others are prone to comply with the federal government’s lead, the potential for the brand new definition to be misused shouldn’t be missed.
3. It each isn’t and could be central to counter-terrorism legislation
In all the furore surrounding the disclosing of the brand new definition, any reference to Prevent – the federal government’s counter-extremism technique – has been conspicuous by its absence. This is unusual on condition that the federal government’s outdated definition of extremism is integral to the Prevent technique. The outdated definition is a part of counter-terrorism legislation and supplies the authorized foundation on which particular authorities are required to assist stop the danger of individuals turning into susceptible to terrorism and the ideologies that inform it.
That there was no reference made to Prevent or any try to clarify what the connection between the technique and the brand new definition could be is due to this fact considerably weird. We don’t know whether or not the brand new definition is designed to interchange the outdated definition or whether or not we’ll now have two totally different definitions, every working in its personal sphere of affect. While widespread sense would recommend it might be the previous, the very particular remit of the brand new definition defined by Gove would appear to recommend the latter.
4. Organisations don’t know in the event that they’re being labelled
The authorities’s outdated definition of extremism was frequently and routinely criticised as getting used to disproportionately goal Muslims and their communities. Many thought it Islamophobic. The new definition due to this fact afforded a chance for the federal government to make the case that this was not nearly Muslims however about all types of extremism no matter who could be concerned.
Failing to heed the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, when he warned the brand new definition dangers “disproportionately focusing on Muslim communities” the federal government seems to have stoked reasonably allay fears. This was evident in how quite a lot of Muslim organisations have been named in leaks to the media previous to unveiling and by Gove, who used parliamentary privilege to call them in a speech to MPs. This included the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), Cage International and Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development). Others such because the Friends of Al-Aqsa, Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and 5Pillars have additionally been talked about.
Both MAB and Mend have already challenged Gove to repeat the allegations outdoors of parliament to allow them to pursue authorized proceedings in opposition to him. The MCB says it has already taken recommendation from attorneys.
The authorities has additionally made reference to extreme-right teams, comparable to Patriotic Alternative, they’re wildly totally different from the community-focused Muslim organisations they’re being equated with.
All in all, the proof means that, other than the definition itself, little or no else has modified.
Chris Allen doesn’t work for, seek the advice of, personal shares in or obtain funding from any firm or organisation that will profit from this text, and has disclosed no related affiliations past their tutorial appointment.