Gove unveils new definition of extremism
The government today unveiled its revised definition of extremism after weeks of speculation and leaks to the press.
Communities secretary Michael Gove had the tricky job of revealing it in the Commons and then taking questions on the new legislation. He said that, in the face of rising antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred in the wake of October 7 and the war in Gaza, a new definition was necessary to combat these forces.
This new definition does not apply to protests or demonstrations but only to organisations that the government can work with or give funding to. As it does not apply to protests, Gove said it would not infringe upon free speech.
Extremism is now defined 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”.
Previously, the government had defined extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and belief”, and also “calls for the death of members of our armed forces”.
The purpose of this change is to catch out organisations that would not previously have fallen under the definition of extremism and have been able to access government funding.
Michael Gove said: “We know that there’s been cases in the past where individual extremist organisations have sought to take advantage of government patronage, money and influence in order to advance their agenda. So today’s definition applies only to government and makes it clear that we will keep these organisations at arm’s length so they can’t benefit from access to government and its funds.”
In particular, he named five organisations that would have to be measured by the new definition of extremism to see if they fall foul of it. On the far right, he named the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, which “promote a neo-Nazi ideology”
He also mentioned the Muslim Association of Britain, Cage and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), saying they “give rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views”.
Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner said her party would “challenge and probe” the government’s new definition. She said: “Given this new definition, the public will rightly be alarmed at the idea that government ministers could already have met with extremist groups.”
“Can the secretary of state shed some light on this? Renewed vigilance and diligence, these are welcome, particularly in the current climate, but if its own department now needs to cut ties with extremist groups, it begs the question why they were working with them in the first place.”
Even amongst Gove’s colleagues, the reception wasn’t great. Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick said of the definition that “though well-intentioned, [it] lands in no man’s land”. Miriam Cates MP, co-leader of the New Conservatives caucus with Danny Kruger, complained that under this new definition, some gender-critical feminist organisations may be under threat.
The law always struggles with subjectivity. Add to that the huge emotional and ideological baggage that this definition aims to be clear about and one can see why this is no easy job. Yet, since October 7 we have seen unsustainable levels of hatred unleashed. It must stop.