Communities Secretary, Michael Gove, takes the stage today as he unveils the government’s new definition of extremism and begins to identify those who fall foul to this.
This decision by the Tory government has arisen due to the rise of hateful and intolerant protests, particularly in the wake of the Hamas attacks on October 7th. Since the attacks, the Community Security Trust recorded 4103 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2023, an increase of 1475 compared to 2022. A more in common poll says 25% think Britain is unsafe for Muslims and 33% for Jews.
Gove said that extremist ideology “poses a real risk” to democracy. The new definition and engagement principles are said to ensure that those who promote extremist ideologies or spread hate in their communities are not legitimised through their interactions with the government. Those classified as ‘extremist’ will be denied government grants, ministerial meetings, access to the senior civil service, honours, and public appointments.
This is arguably a controversial move from the Tories who are usually opposed to ‘cancel culture.’ When questioned whether Tory donor, Frank Hester’s, alleged statement: “I don’t hate all black women at all, but I think [Diane Abbott] should be shot,” counts as extremist, Gove replied “I take these things seriously, it would be the case that any individual would have to follow a rigorous process…it would be a due diligence process that would be conducted very carefully… a process that would follow independent advice.”
Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader, Daisy Cooper stated “the conservative party need to confirm if they will adopt the government’s new definition of extremism. If they do, that will surely leave them with no choice but to return this tainted money. If not, it shows once again that it’s one rule for them and one rule for us.”
Therefore, the question remains whether the conservative government are shooting themselves in the foot by refusing to return Hester’s money, whilst at the same time campaigning for tougher sanctions on those they deem ‘extremist.’
Those in support of a new definition of extremism:
In light of Michael Gove’s statement that “today’s measures will ensure that government does not inadvertently provide a platform to those setting out to subvert democracy and deny other people’s fundamental rights,” many believe this is the first important step in tackling extremism to protect our democracy.
Senior Advisor of the Counter Extremism Project, Professor Ian Acheson, said: “These are necessary next steps to confront and deter those who advocate for violent extremism. Hateful anti-British ideas that undermine our democracy creating intimidation and fear need ideologues to drive them. It is intolerable that the state underwrites people and organisations poisoning community life in one of the most successful multi-ethnic countries in the world.”
The Sun leader, in support of the need of a revised definition of extremism, questions whether the definition on extremism has actually gone far enough. He states that “it means well, but the government’s new extremism definition won’t even begin to crack down on the anti-Semitic Islamists who spread hate and fear…it creates no new powers…and does not apply to quangos, universities, the police or the CPS.”
The sceptics: What about civil liberties?
Fears have arisen regarding the new definition of extremism from civil liberties campaigners such as Amnesty International. They have stated that “this dangerously sweeping approach to labelling groups and individuals’ ‘extremist’ is yet another smash and grab on our human rights by a government which has become a serial offender in this regard.”
Muslim Association of Britian branded the definition “an egregious assault on civil liberties.” For example, whilst the Muslim council of Britain “endorses” Prime Minister Sunak’s objectives regarding safety, democracy, and unity, they criticise the unfair targeting on Muslim communities and vague labelling of ‘Islamists,’ they claim – this is “peppered with ill-defined warnings of extremism from ‘Islamists’ and the far-right as extremists.”
Tory MPs say it could end up affecting gender-critical feminists or anti-abortion campaigners in the future. Miriam Cates (MP), writes that the policy brings “extraordinary powers to curtail free speech…history teaches us that this is the slippery slope towards authoritarianism.” In PMQ’s yesterday, she stated: “the Government wish to broaden the definition of extremism are concerning, because in separating the definition of extremism from actual violence and harm, we may criminalise people with a wide range of legitimate views and have a chilling effect on free speech.”
In a similar vein, David Davis (MP) states “restricting free speech, and forcing those who hold views inimical to our own out of public debate and into the shadows, is an authoritarian act that will only serve to further alienate those who are susceptible to extremist views.”
Final thoughts:
The government’s attempt to define extremism sparks heated debate and raises fundamental questions about free speech and civil liberties. Even within the Tory party, voices of dissent are growing louder, with figures like David Davis and Miriam Cates expressing reservations about the policy’s potential consequences.
This underscores the inherent challenge of satisfying diverse perspectives with a singular definition of extremism. With civil liberties campaigners and Muslim associations branding the definition as an assault on freedoms, and concerns about potential misuse to target legitimate views, the Prime Minister faces an uphill battle in gaining widespread support, even amongst his own party, for the proposal.
The controversy surrounding the definition of extremism highlights the delicate balance between national security interests and the protection of individual rights, leaving many questioning how the government will navigate these complex and contentious issues.
To read more about Chamber UK’s work and insight on Diversity and Inclusion, click here.