The dangers of defining "extremism"

The UK government's new definition raises serious questions

T

here have been sweeping characterisations of pro-Palestine protesters as extreme or racist. Credit: Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona via Unsplash

Blog
NEW HUMANIST
By Editorial Staff , Thursday, 9th May 2024

What we think of as “extreme” is a matter of perspective. So it’s not surprising that when the UK government introduced a new definition of “extremism” in March, it sparked controversy. The new definition is “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: 1) negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or 2) undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or 3) intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”

The change is not about banning groups. Instead, it seems to be mainly aimed at ensuring that the government doesn’t inadvertently support those advancing aims that might be threatening to British society. Groups deemed “extremist” will be publicly named and denied grants, ministerial meetings and access to public appointments.

The government says the new definition is “narrower and more precise”. Notably, it did away with the slippery concept of “British values” included in the previous one. It also avoided some of the more troubling language that had reportedly been considered, such as references to undermining “British institutions”, which the National Secular Society had pointed out could include the Church of England or the monarchy.

Nonetheless, legal expert Adam Wagner expressed concern about point three, noting that the idea of “creating a permissive environment” was too vague and could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. The government justified the change by pointing to the rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia since the beginning of the Israel-Gaza conflict. This is a legitimate concern, but the rhetoric around the issue has too often been accompanied by sweeping characterisations of anti-war protesters as extreme or racist. Muslim groups in particular are concerned that they could be unfairly targeted. Of the five groups identified as potentially affected, three are accused of Islamic fundamentalism and two of neo-Nazism.

Should there be a definition of “extremism” at all that is separate from the criminal code on violence and hate speech? Or does this move the government too close to policing thought? As even Miriam Cates, co-head of the New Conservatives group, has argued: in a democratic society “it is surely impossible to establish robust legal definitions of terms such as ‘extremism’ ... the state should only intervene on those with ‘extreme’ beliefs when they cross the line into violence and intimidation.”

This article is a preview from New Humanist's summer 2024 issue. Subscribe now.

This article was brought to you by New Humanist, a quarterly journal of ideas, science and culture. To support our journalism, please subscribe.