New British extremism policy raises concerns about freedom of expression
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.