The British government unveiled, Thursday March 14, a new definition of extremism, an already controversial measure which should allow certain organizations to be blacklisted, depriving them of public funding and interactions with the government and its agents. .
At the beginning of March, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, described extremism as ” poison “ risking tipping the country into “law of the jungle”. He had denounced “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and crime” since the start of the conflict between Israel and Hamas on October 7, targeting in particular Islamist movements and far-right groups.
“In order to protect our democratic values, it is important to strengthen our common foundation and to be clear and precise in identifying the dangers posed by extremism,” defended Minister Michael Grove, responsible for the file. The new wording defines extremism as “the promotion of an ideology based on violence, hatred and intolerance” which aims to “deny or destroy the fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms of others”has “undermine, overthrow or replace the UK system of parliamentary liberal democracy and democratic rights”or to “intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results” of the first two points.
No effect on criminal law
This “new, more precise definition” that the previous one, dating from 2011, will be used by the government to “ensure they do not inadvertently provide a platform, funds or legitimacy” to extremist groups, specifies the government in a press release. However, she will not have “no effect on existing criminal law”, specifies the text. Following the recommendations of a group of experts, the government will publish a list of organizations deemed extremist in the coming weeks.
But the conservative government’s approach is widely criticized, with some worrying about aggravated community tensions, or a threat to freedom of expression. Even before this new definition was revealed, the spiritual leaders of the Church of England had warned on Wednesday that it risked “to disproportionately target Muslim communities, who already face increasing levels of hatred.”
“Anything that leads to division between communities is bad for the country”also denounced former Labor MP John Mann, now government advisor on anti-Semitism. “The politics of division does not work electorally”he said, a few months before legislative elections which promise to be difficult for the conservative party.
Emphasis on ideology
“This definition emphasizes ideas, ideology, and not action, unlike the previous one,” argued Jonathan Hall, independent advisor to the government on terrorism matters, to the Guardian. The 2011 definition indeed required a “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values” to qualify as extremism. By distancing himself from the actions, Mr. Hall says he is entitled to question the motives: “What does the government care about what people think unless they act on it?” “.
Others warn of a potentially counterproductive measure, paving the way for a restriction of freedom of expression. “Suppressing peaceful demonstrations will not help fight extremism, but on the contrary risks fueling it”warned Areeba Hamid, from the NGO GreenPeace UK, cited by Tea Guardian. For her, this measure risks to “exclude law-abiding protesters from the conversation to make way for people who care less about peace and legality.” »
The NGO Human Right Watch, for its part, described the new definition as“useless and unacceptable”believing that she is “the government’s latest attempt to silence critics”. Several conservative media have also relayed these fears, like the tabloid Daily Mail for who “in the hands of an authoritarian government in the future”this definition “could be used to curtail legitimate debate.”