New Extremism Definition May Harm Our Democracy

'What the UK must do is return to bread-and-butter law and order, not creating poorly-crafted definitions of extremism'

Please subscribe below to receive future Heaver News articles!

Yesterday, the Communities Secretary Michael Gove unveiled the UK Government’s new definition of extremism.

It describes extremism as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance” – a remarkably expansive framing of extremism that could be exploited by bad-faith actors to clamp down on traditional views based on family, marriage, gender, and sanctity of life.

While it is not legally binding, it is intended to be a guide for Ministers and civil servants in terms of who they should and shouldn’t engage with – again, ultimately a subjective decision made through the eye of the beholder.

A culturally-liberal civil servant in social policy may think that a Christian charity which is focused on reducing family fragility in modern Britain is undeserving of engagement if it is led by an Anglican individual who holds the ‘extremist’ view that having children out of wedlock is wholly undesirable. Is that what the Conservative Party wants?

Gove also mentioned five organisations in his Commons statement: the British National Socialist Movement (BNSM), Patriotic Alternative (PA), the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), and CAGE International.

Of course, being of Bangladeshi Muslim heritage and supporting a civic model of British nationalism, it is safe to say that I have little time for any of these organisations.

However, by honing in on the Hard Right and Islamism, the Government clearly has a blind-spot when it comes to hard-left activity (which was not mentioned at all in Gove’s speech). The threat of radical transgenderism and eco-militancy should not be trivialised.

Perhaps the Conservative leadership is reluctant to be tough on this front because the party has trans-zealot MPs in its ranks and is also home to Net Zero radicals.

By explicitly naming specific organisations that will be assessed in line with the new definition of extremism (and overlooking others), the Government risks being accused of protecting certain identitarian interests.

What the UK must do is return to bread-and-butter law and order, not creating poorly-crafted definitions of extremism which could be weaponised by those who wish to suppress perfectly legitimate views based on socially conservative beliefs.

The focus should be on the State applying and enforcing existing laws – taking robust action against extremists responsible for ideologically-motivated forms of violence, intimidation, and harassment.  

While the new definition of extremism is being sold as a much-needed protective shield for Britain’s parliamentary democratic system, it risks eroding freedom of expression and assembly.

Gove is an intelligent politician who was responsible for the delivery of effective educational reforms - but he has scored a spectacular own goal with this new definition of extremism which threatens to do more harm than good to our liberal democracy.