Revealed: plan to brand anyone ‘undermining’ UK as extremist
Leaked documents spark furious backlash from groups who fear freedom of _expression_ could be suppressed
Government
officials have drawn up deeply controversial proposals to broaden the
definition of extremism to include anyone who “undermines” the country’s
institutions and its values, according to documents seen by the
Observer.
The new definition, prepared by civil servants working for cabinet minister Michael Gove, is fiercely opposed by a cohort of officials who fear legitimate groups and individuals will be branded extremists.
The
proposals have provoked a furious response from civil rights groups
with some warning it risks “criminalising dissent”, and would
significantly suppress freedom of _expression_.
One
Whitehall official said: “The concern is that this is a crackdown on
freedom of speech. The definition is too broad and will capture
legitimate organisations and individuals.”
Gove’s
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities started a review
of non-violent extremism in spring this year. A national cohesion and
counter-extremism plan with the new definition is expected to be
launched shortly.
Internal departmental
documents marked “official – sensitive” say the proposed definition
could “frame a new, unified response to extremism”.
It lists a number of organisations which it considers would be “captured” by the new definition.
Among them are the Muslim Council of Britain
(MCB), Palestine Action and Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development),
which has featured at some Conservative party conference fringe events
and in 2021 provided evidence to parliamentary committees.
The
documents state: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of any
ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of
parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.”
Gove’s officials are understood to have been in talks with the Home Office and No 10 over the definition, which arrives during a particularly fraught period.
Last week the home secretary, Suella Braverman, described pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London as “hate marches”, prompting dismay from many participants who consider themselves peace campaigners.
On Saturday during the latest pro-Palestinian march, thousands assembled in London’s Trafalgar Square with 11 arrests made.
Civil
rights groups said introducing a wider definition of extremism would
threaten freedom of speech. There has been no public consultation on the
new definition.
This is an unwarranted attack on freedom of _expression_.
Martin Bright, Index on CensorshipAkiko Hart, interim director at Liberty, said: “This proposed change would be a reckless and cynical move, threatening to significantly suppress freedom of _expression_.
“Expanding
the definition so far beyond the current guidance risks further
discouraging individuals and groups from legitimately exercising their
right to free speech, while allowing the government to crack down on
community groups, charities or faith groups they disagree with.”
Martin Bright, editor-at-large, Index on Censorship,
added: “This is an unwarranted attack on freedom of _expression_ and
would potentially criminalise every student radical and revolutionary
dissident. It has never been the British way to arrest people for
thought crime.”
Ilyas Nagdee, Amnesty International UK’s racial justice director, said: “This definition must not be accepted or implemented.
“The
definition of extremism and its usage in counter-terrorism policies
like [counter-terrorism strategy] Prevent is already being applied so
broadly it seeks to effectively hinder people from organising and
mobilising. The proposed definition takes this even further and could
criminalise any dissent.”
The government’s 2011 Prevent strategy
defined extremism as the “active opposition to fundamental British
values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the
mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. Further
attempts over the past decade to implement a new definition have been
unsuccessful.
The government proposed a bill
in the Queen’s speech in 2016 to “tackle the menace of extremism”, with a
new civil order regime to restrict activity. The bill faced widespread
opposition and was shelved after the government failed to provide a legally acceptable definition of extremism.
Under
the proposed definition in the documents, extremism would be the
promotion of any ideology which aims to “overturn or undermine the UK’s
democracy, its institutions and values; or threaten the rights of
individuals or create a permissive environment for radicalisation, hate
crime and terrorism”.
It adds that the
definition should be supported with public guidance that enables
“consistent use and application”. The documents state that “stakeholders
have thus far agreed this sets a clear threshold for identifying
extremism”.
There is significant concern among
some officials because they consider the broader definition could be
used against legitimate organisations fiercely opposed to certain
government institutions or calling for their abolition. They are
concerned a wider range of individuals could be no-platformed or
reported as suspected extremists in official files.
The
proposed definition also includes: “Sustained support for, or continued
uncritical association with organisations or individuals who are
exhibiting extremist behaviours.”
It said the
new definition moves from the 2011 definition of “active opposition” of
British values to identifying extremism “through behaviours that enable
the spread of extremist ideology”. This is a significantly broader
definition, potentially capturing people who are considered to have
failed to properly challenge what is seen as extremist behaviour.
Some
officials are concerned the new definition could hamper the activities
of legitimate political or environmental groups. It was reported in 2020
that at least 45 activists were referred to Prevent
over environmental extremism between April 2016 and March 2019. At the
time Amnesty International described the referrals as “deeply
concerning”. MCB said the government “needs to challenge its own
extremists who are intent on dividing our communities”. Palestine Action
said: “This new definition is clearly an attempt to undermine and
intimidate our movement. We refuse to be deterred.”
Mend has been contacted for comment.
A
government spokesperson said: “We are clear there is no place for
extremism, and over the last few years we have taken action to tackle
hatred and those who seek to divide us.
“As
you would expect, we keep our approach to tackling extremism under
review to ensure it meets the evolving challenge it poses.”