Amnesty condemns extremism advice as anti-human rights
◆ Guidance from UK government immediately criticised by charities, religious groups, opposition parties and Tory MPS
The UK government’s new definition of extremism has been condemned as a “smash and grab” on human rights, as affected organisations condemned the move as an assault on civil liberties.
Launched by Communities Secretarymichaelgoveyesterday, the redefinition describes extremism as “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”.
Butthemuslimassociationof Britain (MAB) and Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development) said Mr Gove would not dare to make a similar suggestion without the protection of Parliamentandlegalactionmay have to be taken if he ever did.
They view the definition, announced in the House of Commons by Mr Gove yesterday as nothing more than political posturing and a cynical manoeuvreaimedatappeasing the hard-right base of the Conservative party.
Groups covered by the definition, which is designed to include conduct that falls short ofcriminality,butisstilldeemed “unacceptable”, will be denied access to government funding and prevented from meeting ministers and officials or gaining a platform that could “legitimise” them.
Theannouncementhascome against a backdrop of rising antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents since the October 7 Hamas attacks in Israel, with government figures previously labelling pro-palestine protests as “hate marches”. It is unclear if such protests would be impacted.
However, the policy has attracted criticism from charities, human rights groups and opposition parties, as well as Tory MPS.
Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International’s chief executive, labelledtheexpansionofthedefinition a “dangerous gimmick”, that had come in the wake of protest calling for a ceasefire.
He said: “From the Prime Minister’s disturbing Downing Streetspeechearlierthismonth, the introduction of further antiprotest measures and now the expansion of the extremism definition, it looks as if the government is set on shrinking the space for dissenting views and the right to protest.
“An overwhelmingly peaceful protest movement seeking an end to Israel’s mass killing of civiliansingazaisbeingusedby ministerstoclampdownonour civil liberties, the irony is crushing and frightening. This dangerously sweeping approach to labelling groups and individuals ‘extremist’ is yet another smash and grab on our human rights by a government which has become a serial offender in this regard.
“This attempt to stigmatise legitimate, peaceful political activity is taking us further down the road toward authoritarianism.”
The MAB described the proposals as “flawed”, warning they were “undemocratic, divisive, and potentially illegal” and “may involve defining established Muslim organisations as extremist”.
Labour has claimed the new definitionraisesmorequestions than answers and was “very
This attempt to stigmatise legitimate, peaceful political activity is taking us further toward authoritarianism
unusual”. Shadow Treasury ministerdarrenjonessaid:“the slightconfusionreallyisthatthe governmenthasfocusedonthis definition today, which is not in relation to the counter-extremism strategy, which is now nine years out of date.
"It’snotanactionplanforagencies and others about what action they should take in communities across the country. It’s not even a legal definition.
“All it really does is prevent the government from financingorganisationsorindividuals. Thatratherimpliesthatmichael Gove is worried they’re doing that at the moment, which raisesmorequestionsthanhe’sbeen able to answer this morning.”
Senior Tories warned the new extremism definition was neitherstrongenoughtotackletrue extremists nor to protect contrarian views.
Robert Jenrick, a Conservative former Home Office minister, told the Commons: “I fear that the definition, though wellintentioned, lands in no man’s land: Not going far enough to tackle the real extremists, not doingenoughtoprotectthenonextremists, those people who are simply expressing contrarian views who might find this definition used against them, not perhaps now, but possibly in the future.
“What reassurance can he givemeandotherswhoareconcerned about that?”
Kitmalthouse,anothersenior Tory, described the strengthened definition as a “government blacklist” and warned there was no right to appeal for groups who meet its threshold.
He said: “I share, along with many other members, some alarm at the emergence of this new definition. Is there really to be no appeal process in this branding of particular groups as unacceptable?
“Not least because, as he will I am sure intend, putting them onagovernmentblacklisteffectivelywillhaveachillingimpact more widely on their place in society from financial services, to the media, who is likely to engage with them.
"At what stage in the process willthosegroupsthathedecides are worthy of examination be abletoprovideevidenceintheir defence?”
Mrgovetoldmpsthatjudicial review would be available as an appeal mechanism to groups defined as extremists. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also pressed Mr Gove on the right to appeal.
Mrgoveinsistedthedefinition would not impact free speech, andwarnedthecountry’svalues ofinclusivityandtolerancewere “under challenge from extremist groups”.