It is never a good sign when a minister needs to spend as long talking about what a new policy doesn’t do as what it does. Much of Michael Gove’s Thursday was occupied with stressing the limits of the new extremism definition. It will not be statutory, the communities secretary pointed out. It will “in no way threaten” free speech. It will not be used against environmental groups. It would not be used in response to an individual comment, he added, responding to the inevitable questions that arose because the crackdown coincided with the Guardian’s revelation that one of the Conservatives’ top donors, Frank Hester, said in 2019 that Diane Abbott “should be shot”.
What the new measure will do, said Mr Gove, is help the fight against extremism. It won’t. Had community cohesion and tackling hatred truly been a priority, a full public consultation and proper engagement with faith groups would have been the right way forward. Instead came what the Conservative peer Sayeeda Warsi described as a “divide and rule approach”.
The government is presenting this measure simultaneously as essential and substantial, yet modest and restricted. Mr Gove named three Muslim-led organisations and two far-right ones to be assessed under the new definition, which will bar government funding for and contact with such groups. This looks more like performative politics than governance. Both the government’s current anti-terrorism legislation reviewer, Jonathan Hall, and a predecessor, David Anderson, have expressed concerns about the broad wording. Unlike the existing 2011 definition, it focuses on ideas rather than action, singling out “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance” that aims, for example, to “destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” or “undermine” parliamentary democracy. Groups will only be able to appeal via the courts.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have warned that the new text risks disproportionately targeting Muslim communities and threatens freedom of speech, the right to worship and peaceful protest. It comes from a government that is cracking down on protests – or at least some of them – under a prime minister who has claimed that democracy is succumbing to “mob rule”. Peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience are being delegitimised.
The Conservatives try to position themselves as the party upholding fundamental values while their own politicians offer a veneer of respectability to divisive and anti-democratic sentiments. Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, described pro-Palestine demonstrations as “hate marches”. Liz Truss appeared in the US last month alongside the far-right commentator Steve Bannon. The party suspended Lee Anderson for saying that Islamists had “got control of” Sadiq Khan, but struggled to explain why.
Antisemitism and Islamophobia have both risen sharply since the 7 October attacks by Hamas: the government’s additional funding for community security was sensible. Tackling the underlying causes and impacts of extremism is essential. Politicising the issue is another matter. Three former Tory home secretaries – Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd – were among those who warned last weekend that no party should use it for short-term tactical advantage. Turning this issue into a campaign tool can only fuel divisions, instead of healing them.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
