On the day after the Rochdale by-election Rishi Sunak stood outside No 10 and gave a speech about countering extremism. It was one of those speeches that it was difficult to disagree with, but it was designed as a softener to today’s announcement about the Government’s new definition of extremism. The definition is not only controversial in its own right, but is also accompanied by instructions to civil servants which are open to a range of interpretations.
According to the new definition, extremism is
the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
- negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
- undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
- intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).
Compare that with the old definition which states that extremism is
vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and belief.
The difference, of course, is that the new definition focuses on ideology instead of action, and that is notoriously difficult to establish. Of particular concern is the phrase “undermine … the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy”, which could be invoked to castigate organisations that are “intolerant” of a proposed Government Bill and seek to undermine its passage through Parliament, even if they only protest peacefully.
In a further move government departments are told that they should not co-operate with organisations that fall under the new definition. But the key question here is who will make that decision?
Liberal Democrats fiercely uphold freedom of speech and freedom of belief, but we still draw on the harm principle and acknowledge that those freedoms can rightly be withdrawn from some organisations and individuals if they threaten community safety. However the bar has to be quite high and should never be applied simply because we don’t like the views being expressed.
There is widespread concern that the new definition, and the procedures that follow it, will disproportionately target Muslim groups. As it happens, I am attending the iftar at a local mosque this evening, so will be very interested to get a sense of people’s reaction to this.
Later:
We now have some comments from the party. Alistair Carmichael, our Home Affairs spokesperson says:
After weeks of Conservative uncertainty, it is disappointing to see this new definition – which is at best vague, and at worst risks sowing even more division.
In working up this new approach, the Conservative Government has failed to consult communities, while bringing forward concerning unilateral powers for ministers. With something as important as countering extremism, they cannot get away with this botched job.
* Mary Reid is a contributing editor on Lib Dem Voice. She was a councillor in Kingston upon Thames, where she is still very active with the local party, and is the Hon President of Kingston Lib Dems.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Tracing the route of Butterley Tunnel on the Cromford Canal
Number 12: The Innocence Mission - Black Sheep Wall
Lib Dems see off Reform in Barnsley with double their vote
Cleanliness at Harris Academy swimming pool #dundeewestend
Welsh councils still facing financical difficulties
Joe Bourke
Mohammed Amin
Jonathan Brown
theakes
21 Comments
To work successfully, any definition of extremism needs widespread approval across the political spectrum.
For the government to bring in a new definition without any consultation with other political parties or civil society will be seen, in my view rightly, as the Conservative Party floundering for political advantage before a general election.
Despite being strongly opposed to extremism and having written and spoken in support of Prevent on many occasions, I consider the new definition to be far too vague. The word “intolerance” is particularly elastic.
Who decides what that harm principle is ? …
Nobody has a right not be offended – otherwise we end up with a defacto system that those that claim to be tolerant are in effect censoring freedom of expression..
The progressive left has all too often sanctioned debate in the name of inclusivity . Thankfully that is coming to an end …
Might the current government be guilty of all three offences?
Has this (proposed) legislation been a product of a functioning liberal democracy?
Will there be genuine liberal, democratic consultation on which ideologies are to be proscribed?
It’s no coincidence that Rishi Sunak gave his impromptu on his doorstep the day after a by-election was won by an outside candidate with the issue of Palestine being the primary issue.
He’s effectively saying that it’s moderate, and therefore OK, to support the Israeli side but extreme to support the Palestinian cause, especially when this support is taken to the streets.
I can’t see this makes any sense at all. Whatever the rights and wrongs of supporting each side might be, let’s discuss and debate the issue rationally and leave out talk of “extremism” and “antisemitism”.
Both sides are entitled to march and both sides are entitled to vote. That’s democracy and even ‘liberal democracy’ if you prefer.
“undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy”
So will jehovah’s witnesses and seventh day adventist will be covered by this new definition as they ban their worshipers from voting therefore undermining democracy and want to replace it with ‘god’s kingdom’ instead?
I suspect under the new definition it will be possible to proscribe groups, such as those who have organised marches calling for action to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, in the belief they wil promote violence on our streets. We saw this type of thinking (by uk government) in the run up to Remembrance Day. Unfortunately, even though events have proved otherwise, government ministers still spout the lie that such marches will be violent and so must be banned…
Obviously, expect the bill to make it very hard (and thus expensive) to challenge a “decision” and thus be used to proscribe groups who think differently to the government.
“Has this (proposed) legislation been a product of a functioning liberal democracy?”
Or has it been a product of what the late Lord Hailsham called an ‘elective dictatorship’?
@Martin Gray “Who decides what that harm principle is ? …”
Are you actually asking who devised the harm principle? If so, it was JS Mill in On Liberty: “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
Or were you asking what counts as “harm”? I agree that is something that needs further unpacking, but it does not usually apply to being offended.
Who gets to define ‘liberal parliamentary democracy’ in this context?
The intention of this change is to help The Tories fight the coming Election. Actually that has been the point of everything they have said & done for several Years, they gave up actually Running the Country after they dumped Truss.
We should say this over & over.
We need to be clear about the problem we are trying to solve. What is it that is currently legal that we want to make illegal and why? If people are plotting to use violence against the state, for instance, there are already plenty of offences to charge them with.
@ Paul Barker “The intention of this change is to help The Tories fight the coming Election. Actually that has been the point of everything they have said & done for several Years”.
Do tell me if I’m wrong, Paul, but isn’t that what most political parties tend to do most of the time – particularly the ones with little or no prospect of gaining power in order to actually implement something ?
@Jonathan Calder. There is a distinction in the Government’s eyes between terrorist organisations (which are illegal) and extremist organisation (which are legal but to be shunned). So civil servants will be instructed not to engage with the latter. A slippery slope comes to mind…
@Mary Reid; re your ‘Slippery slope’ argument. The same can be said re many currently contentious subjects, not least the use of puberty blockers or euthanasia, coming soon, like a freight train to Westminster parliament, with all the personal, emotional, religious baggage that are representatives bring with them.
One person’s ‘slippery slope’ may be another’s ‘nursery slope’ and there in lies the debate, don’t you think?
@Noah. The debate is about whether the Government – or any government – should be able to determine what counts as extremism. The risks are huge, and we have plenty of examples from history, and around the world today, of autocratic regimes who have nibbled away at opposition by branding it as seditious. Democratic freedom has to be actively protected. I do not understand your comment about “nursery slope” unless you really think that civil liberties don’t matter.
@Mary Reid; simply that on person’s red line that must never be crossed is often another person’s barrier that needs to be removed and vice versa, for most things including this there is rarely any absolute the problem is we all tend to think are own views are the correct ones.
If the government is not to determine the definition of extremism then what body or person/s should?
@Noah: “If the government is not to determine the definition of extremism then what body or person/s should?”.
Why do we need a legal definition of extremism that is based on ideology rather than actions? We already have laws that cover terrorist organisations, plus any actions that threaten public safety, as well as hate speech and discrimination. This is an extra and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and control.
“Why do we need a legal definition of extremism that is based on ideology rather than actions?”
I’d agree we don’t. But we are we concerned about it in any case?
It’s just as extreme, for example, to want to privatise nearly everything as it is to advocate we should nationalise nearly everything. But whenever have the Tories shied away from the former on the basis that it’s an extreme POV? But if that’s what they, or the extreme left, wish to argue for, there can’t be any democratic objection. Providing, of course, that no-one is physically harmed in the process.
There are already laws in place to prevent that. They have only to be enforced.
So, just what are the Tories getting at? What’s getting them rattled?
“Why do we need a legal definition of extremism that is based on ideology rather than actions?”
Quite.
Basing it on ideology amounts to ‘thoughtcrime’
@Mary Reid; extra? Yes, unnecessary? Well that’s the debate is it not?
It is certainly clear that there is a wide spread perception that recent events have highlighted the inability of police to take action to prevent certain language being used never mind certain actions taking place. If this continues then we risk real and enduring societal harm, and whilst I do enjoy freedom of thought and action as much as the next person such a freedom is pointless unless certain societal / cultural norms are maintained. I enjoyed the book by Nigel Bigger ‘What’s Wrong With Rights’ in which he argues that not all ‘rights’ are universal or extant at all time or in all circumstances.
Why do we need a definition of antisemitism or Islamophobia, when other laws exist to cover those behaviours?
Actions or words or what is behind them? There is no single solution to these complex issues. In a way actions speak for themselves though intentions are also relevant. In terms of culture both are important. What is said influences what is done. We need a definition that accepts these niceties and takes an overall approach and reflects current realities.