The British government has published a new report definition of extremism on Thursday that it plans to use to cut ties or funding with groups deemed to have crossed the line but which critics fear could restrict the rights of campaigners and curtail freedom of expression.

Michael Gove, a senior minister, said in a statement that the move was aimed at “protecting 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 it could impact the rights of those the government says fit the definition. The only way to challenge such a ruling is probably through court.

The initiative has also sparked a wider debate about how British politicians, ahead of a general election due early next year, choose to address the domestic tensions that have increased since Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel and Israel’s subsequent bombardment on Gaza. Strip.

Even before the details of the new extremism proposals were made public, they had provoked criticism from rights groups and concerns from three former Conservative Party home affairs ministers, including national security, who warned against using the issue extremism for political gain.

Church of England leaders have also done their part. The Archbishop of Canterbury – Justin Welby, the head of the church and a colleague in the House of Lords – and the Archbishop of York said in a statement published on Tuesday that the new definition “inadvertently threatens not only freedom of expression, but also the rights of worship and peaceful protest, hard-won issues that form the fabric of a civilized society.”

They added: “Critically, there is a risk of disproportionately affecting Muslim communities, who are already experiencing increasing levels of hatred and abuse.”

Under the new plan, extremism will be defined as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance” that aims to “deny or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or undermine, overthrow or replace the British system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”, or deliberately create a “tolerant environment” in which others can do so.

In its statement, the government said the new definition was not enshrined in law and would have no effect on existing criminal law. But it added that, following publication of the new definition, “the government will undertake a robust process to assess groups for extremism against the definition, which will then make decisions on government involvement and funding.”

Critics said that precisely that element – ​​the idea that whatever government is in power could blacklist groups it considers extremist, banning them from meeting with government agencies or officials, or funding from taxpayers – which could threaten freedom of expression and civil liberties.

David Anderson, a senior lawyer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation for the government, told the BBC that many questions about the policy still needed to be answered.

“The definition remains extremely broad,” he said. “For example, it catches people who promote an ideology that denies the fundamental rights of others. You can imagine that both sides of the trans debate will respond to this.”

Mr Anderson, who is also a member of the House of Lords, said he did not take much comfort in the reassurance that the definition only covered interactions with government. “I think you also potentially affect a lot of people by labeling them as extremists,” he said, adding that it “potentially affects the freedoms and reputations of a lot of people.”

Sacha Deshmukh, the CEO of Amnesty International, described the plan as a “dangerously overreaching approach to labeling groups and individuals as ‘extremist’”, adding in a statement that it was “another slap and a beating” in the field of human rights.

“This attempt to stigmatize legitimate, peaceful political activity takes us further down the road to authoritarianism,” he added.

Some conservative lawmakers also warned of measures that could threaten freedom of expression. Miriam Cates, Conservative Party MP, told The Times of London that she believed radical Islamism was the most significant threat to Britain’s national security, but that this must be addressed “by properly enforcing our existing laws and banning groups linked to terrorism.”

“In a pluralistic democracy there is of course a wide range of opinions that many of us would consider extreme,” she added. “But the state may only intervene if there is an actual threat of physical damage. Otherwise we will erode our fundamental freedoms of speech, association, expression and religion.”

The government sought to address these concerns in its statement on Thursday, saying the plan was “not intended to silence people with personal and peaceful beliefs – it will not affect freedom of expression, which has always been will be protected.”

The announcement did not include a list of groups deemed to be in conflict with 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 increase in extremist disruption and crime” in Britain since the October 7 Hamas-led attack in Israel. Mr Sunak appealed to people in Britain to come together “to fight the forces of division and defeat this poison.”

Mr Sunak had earlier issued a stark warning to a meeting of senior police officers that “mafia rule is replacing democratic rule.”

Mr Gove said in his statement that “the pervasiveness of extremist ideologies has become increasingly apparent in the wake of the October 7 attacks and poses a real risk to the security of our citizens and our democracy.” He added: “This is the work of far-right and Islamist extremists who are trying to separate Muslims from the rest of society and create divisions within Muslim communities.”

The new definition is an update to the definition outlined in a government anti-extremism strategy known as Prevent. It defined extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values ​​including democracy, the rule of law, individual freedom and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.” Calling for the death of members of the armed forces was also included in the definition.

Earn points

Dear Diary:

I was standing in line at a Panera Bread store in Queens. A woman in front of me took out her phone and started taking pictures of receipts left on the counter by other customers.

The cashier’s expression saved me from having to ask the obvious.

“When I get home,” the woman explained, “I add the receipt numbers to my Panera account and earn points.”

“Not many,” she added, “but why let them go to waste?”

I was reminded of how, growing up in Rego Park in the 1950s, I would search the gutters for discarded Bazooka gum strips and Raleigh cigarette coupons, both of which were redeemable for merchandise. And because I’m responsible for my mother’s S&H Green Stamps books, I never leave stray stamps on the floor at the A&P.

Once the woman had her photos, she got a large cup of hazelnut coffee and I stepped forward to place my order.

The cashier asked for my rewards number. I said I didn’t have one.

“But,” I added, “I think I know someone who will appreciate my receipt.”

–James Penha

Late summer storm

Dear Diary:

It was almost 6pm on a drizzly September afternoon. The wind picked up—a sign of even heavier rain—and many people on the streets of the Upper East Side hurried home.

I stood under an awning waiting for the worst of the rain to pass. I watched an older man in a suit look up from his phone and see a toddler making funny faces at passersby through the window of a yellow taxi stopped at a traffic light.

The man put the phone in his shirt pocket, stuck out his tongue and crossed his eyes to match the child’s funny face.

The child grinned through the window and waved at the man as the taxi drove away.

The man smiled and giggled before crossing the street.

I heard a clap of thunder and the beginning of a flood at the end of summer. The streets were now empty.

–Olivia Bensimon

In sync

Dear Diary:

I was in the Times Square subway station, walking from the 7 train to the A, C, and E lines. It was the evening rush hour and hordes of people were rushing to escape Midtown and head to uptown, downtown, or New Jersey.

I was at full speed when I heard the distant notes of the Habanera from Bizet’s “Carmen”. Soon a woman started singing along to the music, and I started saying the words.

By the time I got to her, we were completely in sync, singing “l’amour est enfant de bohème…”

As I passed her, she caught my eye and smiled. I jumped up the A with the spring of a toreador in my step.

— Nicholas Gerard

Shoe shopping

Dear Diary:

Frustrated by an endless search for apartments, I stopped at a shoe store on the Upper West Side for distraction.

As I sat down, a nearby woman turned to me.

“Do these shoes look old to me?” she asked calmly.

Of course not, I said. They look great on you.

She said she lived on the Upper East Side but used to come to the store with her late husband.

She asked where I lived. I mentioned that my lease had not been renewed due to what I perceived as corporate greed and that I had been living in a hotel for the past two months.

She said her building’s management company had three rental units. I took the name of the company and thanked her.

After she left the store, I looked at the shoes she had tried on. I asked for a pair in my size. They were perfect.

When I got back to the hotel an hour later, I looked up the management company online and saw no available listings. I sent a note anyway, expressing my interest and explaining what I was looking for in a new place.

Two days later I received a response about a brand new ad. Two days later I saw the place.

“I’ll take it!” I said after about five minutes.

–Joan Hershey

Freeze

Dear Diary:

It was a few years ago and Manhattan was in the middle of a week-long deep freeze.

Although temperatures were in the single digits, there had been no precipitation, meaning no freezing rain to keep me off my bike. Just wrap up in layers, a warm hat to cover my ears and a good pair of gloves and I was good to go. Midwesterners know how to handle the cold.

I rode to the post office just as a fellow hard soul untied his bike from the post I was planning to use to lock mine. We looked at each other.

“Minnesota,” he shouted.

“Michigan,” I replied, and then he continued on his way.

– Michael A. Kaplan

Read all recent entries and our submission guidelines. Reach us by email diary@nytimes.com or follow @NYTMetro on Twitter.

Illustrations by Agnes Lee