UK’s New Extremism Definition: A Threat to Civil Liberties

852 words, 5 minutes read time.

The UK government’s recent unveiling of a new definition of extremism has sparked controversy and concern from civil liberties advocates. While ostensibly aimed at safeguarding democracy, the definition raises serious questions about its implications for free speech, political dissent, and the rights of marginalized communities.

The Definition Unveiled: A Closer Look

The government’s updated definition of extremism (announced by Michael Gove) states that it encompasses “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred, or intolerance.” It specifically targets actions that aim to:

Negate or Destroy Fundamental Rights: Extremism seeks to undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
Challenge the Democratic System: It aims to overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights.
Create a Permissive Environment: Extremism intentionally fosters an environment where the results mentioned in points 1 and 2 can thrive.
While the government asserts that this definition is narrower and more precise than its predecessor, introduced in 2011, critics argue that it leaves room for ambiguity and potential misuse.

Islamophobia and the Palestine Solidarity Movement

The government’s move to assess Muslim organizations with an “Islamist orientation and beliefs” under this definition has raised alarm. The Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), Cage, and Mend find themselves under scrutiny.

The Real Agenda

The government claims that these Muslim groups “subvert democracy and deny other people’s fundamental rights.” In reality, they are part of a mass movement with considerable and diverse public support calling out Britain’s support for Israel’s actions in Palestine. By labelling them as extremists, the government risks stifling legitimate criticism and dissent. Just like Rishi Sunak condemning the choice of the people of Rochdale who elected George Galloway we see the tendency toward authoritarian and arrogant disregard of the people and their wishes.

Assessment and Consequences

The targeted groups will undergo a “robust” assessment, potentially leading to the cessation of government funding and engagement. However, they won’t face criminal charges or be barred from holding protests. The government’s commitment to “holding these and other organizations to account” remains vague, leaving room for subjective interpretation.

A Troubling Precedent

The 2011 guidelines defined extremism based on “vocal or active opposition to British fundamental values.” The new definition’s broader scope raises concerns about its impact on civil liberties, particularly for marginalized communities. It risks chilling free expression and stifling legitimate activism.

The inclusion of some small far-right groups such as Patriotic Alternative and the British National Socialist Movement serves as a convenient cover to divert attention from the true targets of the policy. By including these fringe groups alongside Muslim organizations critical of government policies, the authorities obscure the real intent of the definition and engage in guilt by association tactics to smear legitimate groups advocating for justice and human rights.

The Swift Shift: Lack of Consultation

The unveiling of the updated extremism definition caught many by surprise. Civil liberties advocates point out that the lack of meaningful consultation with affected communities and experts undermines the democratic process. The absence of robust discussions and input from diverse voices raises questions about the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability. This top-down and arrogant approach seems likely to undermine support for the definition and the measures that follow from it from the wider public.

Voices of Concern: What Critics Say

Amnesty International UK:

Describing the move as a “smash and grab” on human rights, Amnesty International UK warns that the new definition sets a dangerous precedent. It risks stifling legitimate political activity and curbing free speech.

Muslim Association of Britain (MAB):
MAB Chair, Raghad Altikriti, condemns the definition as an attack on civil liberties. She emphasizes that labelling law-abiding individuals and groups as extremists undermines democracy, religious freedoms, and free speech.

Jonathan Hall KC (Independent Reviewer of State Threat Legislation):
Hall criticizes the labelling of people as extremists by “ministerial decree.” He highlights the lack of safeguards and an appeal body, raising concerns about potential misuse and overreach.

Lessons from History

Moreover, history teaches us that repressive measures often begin with targeting a few select groups before gradually expanding to encompass a broader range of dissenting voices. A notable example is the Public Order Act, initially introduced to counter the menace of Mosley’s blackshirts, which has since been wielded against a wide array of political, community, and trade union groups. This pattern highlights the inherent danger of granting authorities unchecked powers to designate certain ideologies as extremist, as it opens the door to abuse and suppression of democratic rights and freedoms. That’s why Third Way defends the rights of all, including unpopular or controversial groups whether Muslim or far-right.

Therefore, it is imperative to view the government’s actions through a critical lens and resist any attempts to justify the curtailment of civil liberties under the pretext of countering extremism. It’s the government not the ‘extremists’ who are the real and present danger to our liberties. Upholding the principles of free speech, political dissent, and equality for all necessitates vigilance in challenging oppressive measures that threaten to undermine the very foundations of democracy.

By Pat Harrington