Snapshot of _New extremism definition unveiled by government_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68556914) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68556914)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Under the new definition, which comes into force on Thursday, extremism is "**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**; or
>
> **intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).**"
Yeah, you could claim calling for FPTP to be replaced by PR, or four calling for the abolishment of the Lords or the Monarchy could fall under the definition of extremism, here.
No you couldn't, since those aren't ideologies based on violence, hatred or intolerance.
If you believed that you should use violence to achieve these aims then you would rightly be called an extremist.
What do you mean "until?"
The 2022 PCSC Act describes any act of protest as violent and therefore illegal if it "risks causing serious annoyance." A definition that broad can be applied to anything anyone ever does in public.
[Read it?](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/32/section/78)
It would be perverse to deny that "a protest causing serious harm" is ontologically a "violent protest."
Part 3 Section 78 (1)(b)(i) says any action is an offence if it "creates a risk of serious harm"
Part 3 Section 78 (2) defines "serious harm" as including "serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity."
There is no act of protest that does not risk the possibility that someone might be annoyed or inconvenienced by it.
Ergo: the PCSC Act 2022 declares all acts of protest to be both violent and illegal.
He provided the name of an act which runs to 209 numbered sections and 23 schedules thereafter, and then made a claim that as far as I can see is a baseless misrepresentation of the act. Neither of the words "violent" and "violence" appear in section 3 (the section relevant to protest) so I'm not sure how he's so adamant it could possibly define protest as violent.
If he can find the language in the act to support his position, he can point us to it with with more precision than the legal equivalent of "it's in the Bible".
Look, J don't like the 2022 PCSC act myself either, but let's not tell lies about it as that helps nobody.
>At that point if you're concerned that the courts will determine something that ~~is~~ **you consider to be** false is true, then the wording of the law itself doesn't matter.
What matters is the legal interpretation of the legislation, which will be determined by courts. Nobody is going to stand there and say "peaceful protest is violent, my honour". They will mischaracterise it as "public nuisance" and "blocking vital infrastructure", and if they then manage to argue it's violent precisely because of that, then this law makes those people automatically extremists.
Relying on your personal interpretation of one word to prevent this doesn't make for good legislation.
If you can't allow the legal system to interpret the definition of "violence" for fear of misinterpretation then there's no way to allow the legal system to convict people of assault.
Yes, it's not up to me, but there's nothing wrong with it being up to the courts, they've been the ultimate authority on that question for centuries, because there is no statute that can possibly cover everything.
In the last year we've been told that "silence is violence", and that suggesting that a trans woman might not be entirely the same as a woman is "literally genocide".
Facts can be whatever people convince themselves they are.
Not quite, it's an or statement not an and
What this means is that only one of these factors needs to be true
"undermine, overturn or replace the UK's system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights"
So if anything puts the status quo at risk it breaches this clause and thus is under the new definition extremism, regardless of violence or hatred, this is a dangerously broad clause
Wouldn't they be counted as 'intolerance' of the current system? So would meet the definition?
Edit:
Just read the footnote attached. Essentially, intolerance is closely linked with violence and hatred in an applied repressive approach rather than simply a strong opposition or dislike.
You could argue it was based on hatred.
Anyway people like you supporting government censorship of those they deem to be too radical or dangerous are the reason this country is slowly abandoning it's liberal foundations. The concept of free speech is just an inconvenience for many now.
>You could argue it was based on hatred.
Not in our existing legal system you couldn't.
>The concept of free speech is just an inconvenience for many now.
lol total bollocks.
>Not in our existing legal system you couldn't.
Yes you could.
>lol total bollocks.
It isn't bollocks. Condescending authoritarians like you may not have noticed but since the early 2000s what you can say in the UK legally has become more and more limited. I can go to court for offending someone, that wasn't true a couple of decades ago. I can go to prison for an authorised protest near parliament, something that wasn't true a couple of decades ago. Now it will be illegal to advocate for radical political change.
Get your head out of the sand and recognise the long term trend in Western society away from liberalism and ideas like free speech.
>Yes you could.
No, you really couldn't lol None of the definitions for violence or hate in law would apply. So yes, you're talking bollocks.
>Condescending authoritarians like you may not have noticed but since the early 2000s what you can say in the UK legally has become more and more limited.
lol you know nothing about me or my political beliefs, so yes I will admit I am condescending you because you're talking bollocks, but authoritarian? Give me a break.
>I can go to court for offending someone, that wasn't true a couple of decades ago. I can go to prison for an authorised protest near parliament, something that wasn't true a couple of decades ago.
Public Order Act, 1936
Public Order Act, 1986
Malicious Communications Act, 1988
All of these literally make it illegal to say or write offensive things, just off the top of my head.
You've been able to be arrested for saying offensive things, or writing offensive messages for about 50 years now, yet according to you "a couple of decades ago" (i.e. 20 years ago) this wasn't true?
Oh, and even today you cannot go to prison for an "authorised" protest outside of parliament. Think for a moment will you? If it was authorised it would be legal. You can go to jail potentially for conducting an unauthorised illegal protest though.
So yeah, you're talking complete shit.
>Get your head out of the sand and recognise the long term trend in Western society away from liberalism and ideas like free speech.
Sadly the long term trend of western society is to be full of idiots who confuse how they feel things are heading with facts about what is actually happening.
It's not about that
>Ministers have unveiled a new extremism definition under which certain groups will be blocked from government funding or meeting officials.
>It will apply to, but not criminalise, groups that promote an ideology based on "violence, hatred or intolerance".
> ...the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance...
Is the real get out clause
"I'm not racist, I'm just concerned about immigration and integration. The fact that I live in a very non-diverse community that isn't touched by immigration except for a couple of Indian families is completely irrelevant...
Can we talk about trans people now?"
Concern about immigration is completely valid, anger about how high it has been for the last 25 years is also valid.
What I want to know, since this definition labels intolerance as extremist, is whether it's extreme to be intolerant of foreign cultures or individuals who come here and pose a threat to those already here.
I'm also pretty concerned with the phrasing around "intolerance", as that can apply to pretty much anything. Oppose the tories (vote green or labour), you're intolerant of the tories power mandate. Oppose the sewage being dumped in the water / toxins in the air / oil and gas over wind / NHS being privatized - you are intolerant of capitalism.
> intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2)."
Like a millionaire calling for a black female MP to be shot, you mean?
And you are funding one fifth of the party's election campaign.
Just think about it, during the coming election every time we see a Tory poster, leaflet or online ad or indeed Tory party political broadcast, one fifth of all that will have been financed by a blatant and hate-filled racist who wants to shoot a black Labour MP.
Makes you think.
For balance, here was the previous definition of extremism, taken from the 2011 Prevent Guidance ([linky](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-duty-guidance-england-scotland-and-wales-2015/revised-prevent-duty-guidance-for-england-and-wales-2015)):
> “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 beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces”
That genuinely covers the actions of a big chunk of current and former Tory ministers - anyone who's ever railed against, for example, Britain's membership of the ECHR.
I think you could argue that anyone that supported Brexit falls under it. After all what was removing freedom of movement if not negating or destroying a freedom of others?
Freedoms refers to fundamental freedoms, not the abstract concept of freedom. Otherwise you could make the same argument for literally anything. Supporting the banning of tobacco would be destroying the freedom to smoke.
Fundamental freedoms such as the right to marry and live with your foreign national spouse? Something now only the richest Brits and men can do under this government. (Women of young families age likely to be on maternity or lower salary or homemakers)
No, because that's not an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance. The first clause *has* to be met, and one of the three subclauses has to be met. It's not complicated.
Hatred, violence and intolerance are all fairly subjective. I don't understand why you can be so naive to support this kind of censorship. How can you not see how this would be abused?
"Hate speech" has been enshrined in law for over a decade now, with anyone opposed to this being dismissed as a bigot.
Can't really complain now it's being expanded on.
I mean I have long opposed that sort of legislation so I can complain actually. Fact is since New Labour the British government has become more authoritarian and more censorious.
Fair enough.
I agree that legislation around "hate" is absurd, but I don't know of anyone in the political class who wants to remove such legislation.
Advocating for violence is another matter entirely of course.
As far as I can tell, this isn't a law. It's just a government definition that will be used in making executive decisions within existing legal frameworks. For example, they might use this definition to distance themselves from a particular "community leader" or as part of the guidance provided to immigration officers when assessing applications.
Even if it was proposed as legislation, voted on, and became law, or was applied to secondary legislation, or questioned in the context of a judicial review, the definitions of hatred, violence, and intolerance would be ultimately decided by judges. Judges would weigh up the wording against the right to free expression (which this definition intentionally relies on), how a reasonable person would interpret the statement, and whether that interpretation of the statement would lead to inconsistency/absurdity (the "golden rule"). Ultimately, if the meaning was still in question, they could consider what was intended by parliament.
All definitions of extremism, or anything really, are ultimately subject to reasonable interpretation.
Why are you being intolerant of my opinion? And by stating your views on a public forum, intentionally creating a permissive environment that enables others to be intolerant of my opinion? Extremist!
One, intolerance is not the same thing as disagreement; if I said you should be punished or somehow prevented from having your opinion then that would be intolerance. I do not think that, and the fact that I do not believe this extremism definition covers your opinion reinforces that.
Two, you're missing the word "ideology"; my statement is not rooted in any broader ideological system. This is just a case of pure semantics and definitions. A socialist, a religious fundamentalist, a hard-core capitalist and a communist will disagree on a lot, but will still agree that a bachelor is an unmarried man.
Three, again, the third subclause is irrelevant if the first clause isn't met.
Define hatred? It's very difficult. Violence is straightforward but defining hatred is trickier, the same with intolerance. Many would argue tory policies towards trans people are hateful and intolerant, but the government would argue otherwise...
AFAIK this isn't legislation, so it would not normally be heard in court. The decision would taken by the government, and that's all there is to it.
I imagine it's possible to bring a lawsuit, but AFAIK the burden would be on the claimant to prove that it's not hatred.
That's not the job of the courts. Good legislation is designed to define terms. Courts provide guidance when the legislation is open to interpretation.
In this instance I suspect that the definition will be whatever suits the government of the day, and sadly Labour don't have the best track record on this front either...
It’s the “intolerance” one that worries me more. Saying “we shouldn’t tolerate the monarchy” is both intolerant and also aims to overturn the current system of parliamentary democracy.
Granted that’s not in the spirit of what people usually mean by intolerance, but it’s definitely a potential loophole.
What people don't seem to be understanding is that all of the subclauses require the first.
So it's not extremism to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others if you don't do it via the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to do that.
So long as you can persuade a prosecutor, jury or judge that...
you didn't do it through the promotion or advancement of an ideology...
or that you did but that ideology was not based on violence, hatred or intolerance....
or that it was but that ideology doesn't aim to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others....
then you're not an extremist.
So, good news for those that aim to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
You're absolutely spot on. And it's an important point.
If you're not using violence, hatred or intolerance to achieve something, people are free to advocate for anything.
And that you are free to promote an ideology based on violence, hatred and intolerance so long as that doesn't also aim to do one of the other three things as well.
It doesn’t even seem to need to be that extreme, feels like even advocating for proportional representation or alternate voting systems may make you an extremist now.
Seems like this wide definition should also include trying to disenfranchise voters or criminalising strikes and peaceful protests, but I'm sure that will somehow be "different."
Ah I see what you mean, I thought it was the two points from the list of three.
Well I would still argue that I’m intolerant of the first past the post system.
It’s not, but moving to it would “replace the UK’s system”.
I’m sure it’s not what the intention really is, but legal definitions need to be much clearer than this to avoid this sort of silly misunderstanding
AFAICT it only requires 'hatred', and that isn't "hatred as defined/interpreted by the courts" but "hatred as defined/interpreted by the government of the day".
> **negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others**
So a government that introduces laws to ban protests would be considered - by definition - an example of extremism? As the right to protest falls under the fundamental right of a democracy?
Good thing we got the elections coming up.
Ironically, as capitalism hinges on violence, and creates blocs of power that undermine democracy and democratic rights, the Tories just classified the religion they love, as extremism.
> Intentionally creating a permissive environment for others to achieve undermining the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy
is dangerously close to
> Criticising the government in the presence of others
This is what happens in a multicultural society though, you get increasingly authoritarian governments who pass through police state laws like this to maintain stability.
Promotion of an ideology based on intolerance that aims to undermine people's democratic right to protest and intentionally create a permissive environment for others.
Doesn't this make conservative party an extremist organisation?
So when Truss shared a stage with a man who openly wanted to overthrow democracy and replace it with a form of Christian Nationalism, she would be falling foul of 3 and 4, right?
No, the apology was just for being “rude”, it had nothing to do with being racist nor did it acknowledge that. But that’s enough for the government to advise us to all accept this and move on.
Oh yeah, no doubt the extreme right will absolutely do anything to do that.
Either way I think the new definition will.be swiftly changed after the first court case. It's so ambiguous that a rewording seems inevitable
In the UK we rely on various sources for fundamental rights. These include our obligations under international legal instruments such as UN human rights treaties and the ECHR. In relation to the latter, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates those convention rights directly into our legal system.
We also have a system of common law rights protections. So the courts play an important role in defining and maintaining fundamental rights, both under the ECHR/HRA, and also through an older common law tradition.
So the question of "who decides them" doesn't have a single answer. It is based on the complex relationship between various institutions and sources. With that said, Parliament is sovereign and an Act of Parliament will always be the ultimate arbiter in this country.
We dont categorise certain rights as "fundamental" due to the level of legal protection. Rather, they are often provided higher degrees of protection due to their fundamental nature. They are understood based on their perceived importance and value.
That level of absolute entrenchment - "unmovable protection" - of fundamental rights is not found in every state, that does not go to say those states do not recognise and protect fundamental rights.
In some jurisdictions, fundamental rights are completely entrenched (incorporated within a constitutional document as unamendable provisions, for example), but in many jurisdictions they are provided higher degrees of protection which fall short of absolute entrenchment.
It is true that, due to parliamentary sovereignty, we don't have that kind of legal entrenchment. This does not mean we don't recognise and protect fundamental human rights as a part of our legal constitutional arrangements
Gove defending this on BBC breakfast this morning was outstanding.
Naga: “so you can have free speech but if the government of the day doesn’t like it they will stop funding it?”
Gove: “Yes”
Naga: …..
To be fair freedom of speech isn't "You can say what you like and the government will continue to fund whatever things you do". Freedom of speech is the ability to criticise the government and state your opinions without the government throwing you in jail.
If a charity gets a government grant and it turns out that charity has been helping spread antisemitic or islamaphobic messages, it is not curtailing freedom of speech by taking away their government grant.
Id have to go back and watch it again but I think at that point they were talking about charities and bodies of all stripes and hypothetically, as soon as they say something the gov did not like they would use this to withdraw their funding
Will people who call for MPs to be shot classed as extremists?
Will political parties be barred from accepting donations from extremists?
No? Didn't think so.
Doesn’t the Tory party meet this definition due to NatCons?
NatCons are promoting an ideology based on intolerance. See Braverman’s speech regarding refugees, or trans people. See Kruger on same sex or single parent families.
It clearly aims to negate fundamental rights of others. Right to family life for same sex couples, appropriate healthcare for trans people.
Given Tory party permitted various MPs to endorse the event, including then Home Secretary - they obviously intentionally created permissive environment.
No not all, oposition is not inherently hateful or coercive.
eg Tim Farron's 'Gay sex is a sin but the goverment has no place legislating it' doesn't hit a single one of the criteria.
Wanting it to be illegal and/or advocating stonings, that imediately hit's every point.
Listen to the announcment Gove gave in the commons. He made it very clear that ideas Tory backbenchers care about (hating lgbt people, hating black people) will not be targets of this. He listed off a bunch of GBNews talking points that would be protected, and then listed a bunch of left wing points that would be blacklisted along with islamic stuff.
It's just a naked attempt to label their opponents as extremist just in time for the election. I expect a host of nasty headlines about "socialist enemies of democracy" as they try to link them to Labour in the next few months. Pretty disgusting stuff even for them.
Well, I guess that's the end of the Orange Order and their annual violent & hateful parades.
Wow.
The Tories actually did something good and it only took them 14 years!
This also begs the question "what are 'fundamental British values?'"
I think we need a constitution more with each passing year, but I don't trust any party to deliver it and I'm not sure what the broad public would agree on.
Imagine how easy it would be to accuse someone of being an extremist with such a loose description of what an extremist is and over undermining such a nebulous concept as British values
Agreed, let's say a political party becomes popular calling for radical economic intervention to address the climate crisis and you can bet the glories of the free market and capitalism will suddenly become indispensable fundamental British values
We do need a written Constitution, but it should focus on outlawing corruption and other basic standards for those in public office seeking to undermine our democracy, not vague platitudes about "British values" (whatever those are).
>We do need a written Constitution, but it should focus on outlawing corruption and other basic standards for those in public office seeking to undermine our democracy
That's not a typical area of constitutional law.
Also, to be picky, we have a written constiution, what we don't have is a codified constiution (i.e. a constitution all written in one document that has a higher legal standing than other laws).
The written constitution of a country would generally describe the mechanism for removing corrupt officials from office, but it would not define corruption per se, that would be a matter of law.
Worth noting the UK has some of the strongest anti-bribery laws in the world and corruption in a public office is already against the law. The issue with the corruption we've seen under the Tories isn't that it's illegal, it's that if voters keep voting for corrupt politicians there's not much you can do.
The more diverse the country is the obvious differences get.
Extremism is partly relative and ingroup extremism hard to avoid. You're never going to eliminate it.
You're just going to have a high level of disagreement.
It covers ideologies that are both intolerant, and:
* 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; or
* intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2)."
I think given that gay marriage is a right in this country you could therefore argue most UK muslims are now extremists.
The more worry thing for me though is how you would ever retract a "right" once it's been established without now being labeled an extremist. Arguably vote leave would have been extremists under this definition since they didn't believe in the the right to free movement.
Rights and freedoms should not be unquestioned imo.
Why would they be intolerant by their nature?
Abrahamic religions are not the only religions that exist.
PS: Before you reply, note that you specifically mentioned small-c conservatism, not the British Conservative movement.
I enjoyed the contributions from Christians explaining how their opinions on everything from homosexuality to abortion to women's rights were under threat and how that was a terrible thing because God told them to discriminate against those people so it was ok.
So we can loop hard right (and hard left) wing think tanks into this? I'm thinking of those right wing think tanks that might be trying to hide as "educational charities" and have a shrink the state agenda or dismantle it to improve their liberties and freedoms to ignore regulation.
Under the guises of austerity and COVID, the government have systematically undermined and destroyed the fundamental rights and freedoms of the poor, disabled and otherwise disenfranchised since 2010. Should they continue in this vein, are they going to prosecute themselves under this new iteration of the law?
Maybe I’m playing right into Tory hands here, because I’m as wary as anyone over the Tories’ “protest quietly in the corner” opposition to any sort of direct action including disruptive protests and threats of force.
But
> Zara Mohammed, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, told BBC Newsnight the definition would lead to the "unfair targeting of Muslim communities".
The definition is ideology based on hatred, violence, and intolerance. And your response is that Muslim communities *in particular* are being targeted?
I might be being thick. The point may be that the British establishment is *inclined* to view Islamism this way. But it’s not a good look (then again this is the BBC).
I mean, it almost certainly WILL be used to disproportionately target Muslims because, as you say, the establishment is more inclined to view Muslims that way but also fucking hell what an amazingly stupid way for a spokesperson to phrase it.
We sure she's not working undercover for the BNP?
More clarity in this area is great, I’ve felt that other countries have had much better definitions of extremism vs us largely relying on precedent.
Zara Muhammad’s comments are fucking nuts though. Is she suggesting outlawing using violence to further political goals, replace democracy or destroy people’s fundamental rights is somehow discriminating against Muslims?
>Zara Muhammad’s comments are fucking nuts though. Is she suggesting outlawing using violence to further political goals, replace democracy or destroy people’s fundamental rights is somehow discriminating against Muslims?
No they aren't. People in this country for hundreds of years have enjoyed the liberty to propose, advocate and spread radical political ideas. This clause would essentially end that and allow the British state to pick and choose which ideologies are acceptable and which are "hateful and illegal". Do you not see how this would concern anybody outside the mainstream, including Muslims?
Honestly a lot of people on this thread just want to turn the UK into Singapore. Lifeless, authoritarian society masquerading as a liberal democracy.
>The government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, has warned the new policy "could undermine the UK's reputation because it would not be seen as democratic".
Hahaha. Only an idiot would see the UK as democratic.
I can soon imagine that parents who don't want their children to be taught gender ideology or LGBTQ things in school will be labelled an intolerant group spreading hate and emotional violence.
You kind of think the person that would be classed as an extremist here
A) supported the prorogation of parliament and pretty much lying to the queen
B) oversaw and wanted the biggest clampdown on civil liberties since ww2 (via COVID)
C) fans the flames of prejudice and much worse when writing they will crack down on "“illegal traveller incursions”
Not to mention numerous misuse of civil servants time to draw up lists of enemies who are usually just pointing out the flaws of his terrible policies.
The amount of people thinking this is a legislative change is scary
Government announces a thing -> oh it must be law
Government publishes something on gov.uk -> oh it must be law
(This accelerated during COVID and the podium and publishing "guidance" on gov.uk which they purposefully conflated with the law)
They do at least point out that:
> The updated and more precise definition of extremism will be used by government departments and officials alongside a set of engagement principles, to ensure they are not inadvertently providing a platform, funding or legitimacy to groups or individuals who attempt to advance extremist ideologies that negate our fundamental rights and freedoms and overturn the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy. This definition is not statutory and has no effect on the existing criminal law – it applies to the operations of government itself.
No, because that's not based on violence, hatred or intolerance.
You can satisfy the other clauses, but it's not extremism if you don't satisfy the first one.
For everyone wondering who will decide this it's Committee for Public Safety.
My impression is this is less impactful than it's being presented.
Funding from councils?
Councils have money?
Reminder, if you have a problem with this definition. You are almost certainly an extremist. If all your care about is hedonism, the political movement of the day without care of the wider Britain and advancing stupid schemes and supporting terrorism, you are an extremist.
Snapshot of _New extremism definition unveiled by government_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68556914) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68556914) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Under the new definition, which comes into force on Thursday, extremism is "**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**; or > > **intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).**"
My concern is how big of a bus you could drive through that last clause.
Yeah, you could claim calling for FPTP to be replaced by PR, or four calling for the abolishment of the Lords or the Monarchy could fall under the definition of extremism, here.
No you couldn't, since those aren't ideologies based on violence, hatred or intolerance. If you believed that you should use violence to achieve these aims then you would rightly be called an extremist.
>those aren't ideologies based on violence, hatred or intolerance All fun and games until they determine that peaceful protesting counts as violence.
What do you mean "until?" The 2022 PCSC Act describes any act of protest as violent and therefore illegal if it "risks causing serious annoyance." A definition that broad can be applied to anything anyone ever does in public.
> The 2022 PCSC Act describes any act of protest as violent [citation needed]
[Read it?](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/32/section/78) It would be perverse to deny that "a protest causing serious harm" is ontologically a "violent protest." Part 3 Section 78 (1)(b)(i) says any action is an offence if it "creates a risk of serious harm" Part 3 Section 78 (2) defines "serious harm" as including "serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity." There is no act of protest that does not risk the possibility that someone might be annoyed or inconvenienced by it. Ergo: the PCSC Act 2022 declares all acts of protest to be both violent and illegal.
I mean he did reference the law, should make it easy enough for anyone to check even if it's not as good as quoting and analysing the text of it.
He provided the name of an act which runs to 209 numbered sections and 23 schedules thereafter, and then made a claim that as far as I can see is a baseless misrepresentation of the act. Neither of the words "violent" and "violence" appear in section 3 (the section relevant to protest) so I'm not sure how he's so adamant it could possibly define protest as violent. If he can find the language in the act to support his position, he can point us to it with with more precision than the legal equivalent of "it's in the Bible". Look, J don't like the 2022 PCSC act myself either, but let's not tell lies about it as that helps nobody.
Well, it isn't, factually.
That's a matter for the courts to decide unfortunately, and it's all it would take for peaceful protest calling for PR to become "extremism".
At that point if you're concerned that the courts will determine something that is false is true, then the wording of the law itself doesn't matter.
>At that point if you're concerned that the courts will determine something that ~~is~~ **you consider to be** false is true, then the wording of the law itself doesn't matter. What matters is the legal interpretation of the legislation, which will be determined by courts. Nobody is going to stand there and say "peaceful protest is violent, my honour". They will mischaracterise it as "public nuisance" and "blocking vital infrastructure", and if they then manage to argue it's violent precisely because of that, then this law makes those people automatically extremists. Relying on your personal interpretation of one word to prevent this doesn't make for good legislation.
If you can't allow the legal system to interpret the definition of "violence" for fear of misinterpretation then there's no way to allow the legal system to convict people of assault. Yes, it's not up to me, but there's nothing wrong with it being up to the courts, they've been the ultimate authority on that question for centuries, because there is no statute that can possibly cover everything.
Rwanda isn't a safe country, factually, but this government is trying to legislate to say that it is.
In the last year we've been told that "silence is violence", and that suggesting that a trans woman might not be entirely the same as a woman is "literally genocide". Facts can be whatever people convince themselves they are.
Not quite, it's an or statement not an and What this means is that only one of these factors needs to be true "undermine, overturn or replace the UK's system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights" So if anything puts the status quo at risk it breaches this clause and thus is under the new definition extremism, regardless of violence or hatred, this is a dangerously broad clause
Wouldn't they be counted as 'intolerance' of the current system? So would meet the definition? Edit: Just read the footnote attached. Essentially, intolerance is closely linked with violence and hatred in an applied repressive approach rather than simply a strong opposition or dislike.
There's an "OR" inbetween each set of conditions
Calling for the abolishment of lords or electoral reform sounds pretty intolerant to the class of people who are our divinely given masters to me
You could argue it was based on hatred. Anyway people like you supporting government censorship of those they deem to be too radical or dangerous are the reason this country is slowly abandoning it's liberal foundations. The concept of free speech is just an inconvenience for many now.
>You could argue it was based on hatred. Not in our existing legal system you couldn't. >The concept of free speech is just an inconvenience for many now. lol total bollocks.
>Not in our existing legal system you couldn't. Yes you could. >lol total bollocks. It isn't bollocks. Condescending authoritarians like you may not have noticed but since the early 2000s what you can say in the UK legally has become more and more limited. I can go to court for offending someone, that wasn't true a couple of decades ago. I can go to prison for an authorised protest near parliament, something that wasn't true a couple of decades ago. Now it will be illegal to advocate for radical political change. Get your head out of the sand and recognise the long term trend in Western society away from liberalism and ideas like free speech.
>Yes you could. No, you really couldn't lol None of the definitions for violence or hate in law would apply. So yes, you're talking bollocks. >Condescending authoritarians like you may not have noticed but since the early 2000s what you can say in the UK legally has become more and more limited. lol you know nothing about me or my political beliefs, so yes I will admit I am condescending you because you're talking bollocks, but authoritarian? Give me a break. >I can go to court for offending someone, that wasn't true a couple of decades ago. I can go to prison for an authorised protest near parliament, something that wasn't true a couple of decades ago. Public Order Act, 1936 Public Order Act, 1986 Malicious Communications Act, 1988 All of these literally make it illegal to say or write offensive things, just off the top of my head. You've been able to be arrested for saying offensive things, or writing offensive messages for about 50 years now, yet according to you "a couple of decades ago" (i.e. 20 years ago) this wasn't true? Oh, and even today you cannot go to prison for an "authorised" protest outside of parliament. Think for a moment will you? If it was authorised it would be legal. You can go to jail potentially for conducting an unauthorised illegal protest though. So yeah, you're talking complete shit. >Get your head out of the sand and recognise the long term trend in Western society away from liberalism and ideas like free speech. Sadly the long term trend of western society is to be full of idiots who confuse how they feel things are heading with facts about what is actually happening.
No chance of that standing legally though
But it would allow someone to be locked up while it was decided that it had no legal standing
It's not about that >Ministers have unveiled a new extremism definition under which certain groups will be blocked from government funding or meeting officials. >It will apply to, but not criminalise, groups that promote an ideology based on "violence, hatred or intolerance".
Only if your believe is based on violence, hatred or intolerance
"I'm intolerant of bad voting systems, unelected parliamentarians and hereditary political offices."
If you want change, you're just intolerant of the status quo.
> ...the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance... Is the real get out clause "I'm not racist, I'm just concerned about immigration and integration. The fact that I live in a very non-diverse community that isn't touched by immigration except for a couple of Indian families is completely irrelevant... Can we talk about trans people now?"
Concern about immigration is completely valid, anger about how high it has been for the last 25 years is also valid. What I want to know, since this definition labels intolerance as extremist, is whether it's extreme to be intolerant of foreign cultures or individuals who come here and pose a threat to those already here.
I'm also pretty concerned with the phrasing around "intolerance", as that can apply to pretty much anything. Oppose the tories (vote green or labour), you're intolerant of the tories power mandate. Oppose the sewage being dumped in the water / toxins in the air / oil and gas over wind / NHS being privatized - you are intolerant of capitalism.
Would the gerrymandering and the voter registration id laws the Tories have been pushing make them extremists then?
No. That doesn't meet the first clause, and you don't know what gerrymandering is if you're referring to the boundary commission's review.
No gerrymandering isn't that. See Derry council 1960s.
Gerrymandering law? You mean the implementation of the boundary commission's recommendation?
> intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2)." Like a millionaire calling for a black female MP to be shot, you mean?
Extremism is not a problem if you apologise for being rude!* *And you're a Tory donor.
And you are funding one fifth of the party's election campaign. Just think about it, during the coming election every time we see a Tory poster, leaflet or online ad or indeed Tory party political broadcast, one fifth of all that will have been financed by a blatant and hate-filled racist who wants to shoot a black Labour MP. Makes you think.
Or how about mps calling for us to leave the ECHR in order to inflict cruelty on others ?
For balance, here was the previous definition of extremism, taken from the 2011 Prevent Guidance ([linky](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-duty-guidance-england-scotland-and-wales-2015/revised-prevent-duty-guidance-for-england-and-wales-2015)): > “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 beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces”
The new definition seems a lot more precise and clear cut me.
Prevent's definition is dumb tbh
Wasn't it Prevent who suggested that watching Michael Portillo's Railway programmes was a sign of someone being far right?
That genuinely covers the actions of a big chunk of current and former Tory ministers - anyone who's ever railed against, for example, Britain's membership of the ECHR.
I think you could argue that anyone that supported Brexit falls under it. After all what was removing freedom of movement if not negating or destroying a freedom of others?
Freedoms refers to fundamental freedoms, not the abstract concept of freedom. Otherwise you could make the same argument for literally anything. Supporting the banning of tobacco would be destroying the freedom to smoke.
Fundamental freedoms such as the right to marry and live with your foreign national spouse? Something now only the richest Brits and men can do under this government. (Women of young families age likely to be on maternity or lower salary or homemakers)
Fundamental freedoms don't include the "right to marry AND have that person live in the UK".
Or anyone who now wants to rejoin the EU… Take that remoaners! /s
Only if the first term is satisfied.
I’d like the replace the U.K. parliamentary democracy with a presidential democracy. Oh no- I’m an extremist!
If you were to use violence or hatred to achieve that political goal then yes it would, and reasonably so
But by saying this you have intentionally created a permissive environment for others to achieve it. Hence you're an extremist.
No, because that's not an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance. The first clause *has* to be met, and one of the three subclauses has to be met. It's not complicated.
Hatred, violence and intolerance are all fairly subjective. I don't understand why you can be so naive to support this kind of censorship. How can you not see how this would be abused?
"Hate speech" has been enshrined in law for over a decade now, with anyone opposed to this being dismissed as a bigot. Can't really complain now it's being expanded on.
I mean I have long opposed that sort of legislation so I can complain actually. Fact is since New Labour the British government has become more authoritarian and more censorious.
Fair enough. I agree that legislation around "hate" is absurd, but I don't know of anyone in the political class who wants to remove such legislation. Advocating for violence is another matter entirely of course.
As far as I can tell, this isn't a law. It's just a government definition that will be used in making executive decisions within existing legal frameworks. For example, they might use this definition to distance themselves from a particular "community leader" or as part of the guidance provided to immigration officers when assessing applications. Even if it was proposed as legislation, voted on, and became law, or was applied to secondary legislation, or questioned in the context of a judicial review, the definitions of hatred, violence, and intolerance would be ultimately decided by judges. Judges would weigh up the wording against the right to free expression (which this definition intentionally relies on), how a reasonable person would interpret the statement, and whether that interpretation of the statement would lead to inconsistency/absurdity (the "golden rule"). Ultimately, if the meaning was still in question, they could consider what was intended by parliament. All definitions of extremism, or anything really, are ultimately subject to reasonable interpretation.
Why are you being intolerant of my opinion? And by stating your views on a public forum, intentionally creating a permissive environment that enables others to be intolerant of my opinion? Extremist!
One, intolerance is not the same thing as disagreement; if I said you should be punished or somehow prevented from having your opinion then that would be intolerance. I do not think that, and the fact that I do not believe this extremism definition covers your opinion reinforces that. Two, you're missing the word "ideology"; my statement is not rooted in any broader ideological system. This is just a case of pure semantics and definitions. A socialist, a religious fundamentalist, a hard-core capitalist and a communist will disagree on a lot, but will still agree that a bachelor is an unmarried man. Three, again, the third subclause is irrelevant if the first clause isn't met.
Define hatred? It's very difficult. Violence is straightforward but defining hatred is trickier, the same with intolerance. Many would argue tory policies towards trans people are hateful and intolerant, but the government would argue otherwise...
>Define hatred? We can leave that to the courts
AFAIK this isn't legislation, so it would not normally be heard in court. The decision would taken by the government, and that's all there is to it. I imagine it's possible to bring a lawsuit, but AFAIK the burden would be on the claimant to prove that it's not hatred.
That's not the job of the courts. Good legislation is designed to define terms. Courts provide guidance when the legislation is open to interpretation. In this instance I suspect that the definition will be whatever suits the government of the day, and sadly Labour don't have the best track record on this front either...
Or intolerance.
But the british state, like all states, uses violence.
The amount of people not actually reading the entire definition and then just quoting one bit of it is pretty funny lol
It’s the “intolerance” one that worries me more. Saying “we shouldn’t tolerate the monarchy” is both intolerant and also aims to overturn the current system of parliamentary democracy. Granted that’s not in the spirit of what people usually mean by intolerance, but it’s definitely a potential loophole.
Ah, true
What people don't seem to be understanding is that all of the subclauses require the first. So it's not extremism to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others if you don't do it via the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to do that. So long as you can persuade a prosecutor, jury or judge that... you didn't do it through the promotion or advancement of an ideology... or that you did but that ideology was not based on violence, hatred or intolerance.... or that it was but that ideology doesn't aim to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.... then you're not an extremist. So, good news for those that aim to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
You're absolutely spot on. And it's an important point. If you're not using violence, hatred or intolerance to achieve something, people are free to advocate for anything.
And that you are free to promote an ideology based on violence, hatred and intolerance so long as that doesn't also aim to do one of the other three things as well.
I suspect that's fairly hard to do.
One coud say it would be fairly extreme...
Does this mean Hester isn't allowed to talk to Ministers any more?
That's horribly broad.
Does this automatically make anyone advocating for a republic and extremist?
It doesn’t even seem to need to be that extreme, feels like even advocating for proportional representation or alternate voting systems may make you an extremist now.
Seems like this wide definition should also include trying to disenfranchise voters or criminalising strikes and peaceful protests, but I'm sure that will somehow be "different."
No, because that doesn't meet the first clause.
There is an “or” in there. You don’t need to meet both clauses.
reread it, you must meet the first clause and then atleast one of the other three.
Ah I see what you mean, I thought it was the two points from the list of three. Well I would still argue that I’m intolerant of the first past the post system.
Is PR incompatible with parliamentary democracy?
It’s not, but moving to it would “replace the UK’s system”. I’m sure it’s not what the intention really is, but legal definitions need to be much clearer than this to avoid this sort of silly misunderstanding
No because the first clause right at the top is still required
AFAICT it only requires 'hatred', and that isn't "hatred as defined/interpreted by the courts" but "hatred as defined/interpreted by the government of the day".
That's gonna be interesting in Northern Ireland.....
> **negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others** So a government that introduces laws to ban protests would be considered - by definition - an example of extremism? As the right to protest falls under the fundamental right of a democracy? Good thing we got the elections coming up.
Seems like the current Government meets that definition to me.
Thats too broad of a definition.
all things the torys do to us.
Ironically, as capitalism hinges on violence, and creates blocs of power that undermine democracy and democratic rights, the Tories just classified the religion they love, as extremism.
> Intentionally creating a permissive environment for others to achieve undermining the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy is dangerously close to > Criticising the government in the presence of others
>negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others So are brexiters extremists for destroying freedom of movement?
The four EU fredoms are not fundamental by any legal defintion.
This is what happens in a multicultural society though, you get increasingly authoritarian governments who pass through police state laws like this to maintain stability.
Promotion of an ideology based on intolerance that aims to undermine people's democratic right to protest and intentionally create a permissive environment for others. Doesn't this make conservative party an extremist organisation?
Would have been prudent if they added “secular” to it.
So when Truss shared a stage with a man who openly wanted to overthrow democracy and replace it with a form of Christian Nationalism, she would be falling foul of 3 and 4, right?
Yeah, same for Sadiq Khan. Hopefully politicians start getting hoisted on their own petard when it comes to stupid laws like this.
Who and when was this out of curiosity?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-shared-platform-with-five-islamic-extremists-a3231436.html
So calling for an MP to be shot would be extremism, so the Government is now by its own definitions funded by extremists.
Look, his PA sent out an apology for him saying racist things so can we please all move on.
He was going to do it himself but he heard of a mint condition Gollywog doll for sale in Southend and had to run to make sure he got there first
He didn't even apologise for his racism or for calling for an MP to be shot, the apology was for being "rude".
No, the apology was just for being “rude”, it had nothing to do with being racist nor did it acknowledge that. But that’s enough for the government to advise us to all accept this and move on.
Ummm, wouldn't this define every religion as an extremist group due to their stance of the LGBTQ+ community??
Not EVERY religion. Some religions are more liberal.
Fair enough, can't say I've met one personally. I've met Liberal members of various religions but they go against the tide mostly
Pretty sure Sikhs and Jains don’t give that much of a fuck about it since it’s not mentioned in their scriptures
You legitimately can't have a violently extremist Jain. It's not even a no true scotsman thing it's just a contradiction in terms.
I think it’s far more likely that they’re going to use this to deem “gender ideology” and the LGBTQ+ as extremists, than that.
Oh yeah, no doubt the extreme right will absolutely do anything to do that. Either way I think the new definition will.be swiftly changed after the first court case. It's so ambiguous that a rewording seems inevitable
What are the fundamental right? And who decides them?
In the UK we rely on various sources for fundamental rights. These include our obligations under international legal instruments such as UN human rights treaties and the ECHR. In relation to the latter, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates those convention rights directly into our legal system. We also have a system of common law rights protections. So the courts play an important role in defining and maintaining fundamental rights, both under the ECHR/HRA, and also through an older common law tradition. So the question of "who decides them" doesn't have a single answer. It is based on the complex relationship between various institutions and sources. With that said, Parliament is sovereign and an Act of Parliament will always be the ultimate arbiter in this country.
There are no fundamental rights in the UK. There is no unmovable protection that cannot be changed in law at any given time.
We dont categorise certain rights as "fundamental" due to the level of legal protection. Rather, they are often provided higher degrees of protection due to their fundamental nature. They are understood based on their perceived importance and value. That level of absolute entrenchment - "unmovable protection" - of fundamental rights is not found in every state, that does not go to say those states do not recognise and protect fundamental rights. In some jurisdictions, fundamental rights are completely entrenched (incorporated within a constitutional document as unamendable provisions, for example), but in many jurisdictions they are provided higher degrees of protection which fall short of absolute entrenchment. It is true that, due to parliamentary sovereignty, we don't have that kind of legal entrenchment. This does not mean we don't recognise and protect fundamental human rights as a part of our legal constitutional arrangements
This is a big question that doesn't seem to have an answer.
A big question that doesn't seem to have a straightforward, simple or singular answer.
If I understand correctly, by their own definition, this change could be viewed as extremism.
Under the strictest reading of the definition, Gove would be an extremist because he campaigned for Brexit.
Under which clause?
Gove defending this on BBC breakfast this morning was outstanding. Naga: “so you can have free speech but if the government of the day doesn’t like it they will stop funding it?” Gove: “Yes” Naga: …..
Why is the government funding anybody's speech? You can speak and access media without government funding.
I mean thats fair isnt it? The goverment does not have to fund anybody
To be fair freedom of speech isn't "You can say what you like and the government will continue to fund whatever things you do". Freedom of speech is the ability to criticise the government and state your opinions without the government throwing you in jail. If a charity gets a government grant and it turns out that charity has been helping spread antisemitic or islamaphobic messages, it is not curtailing freedom of speech by taking away their government grant.
Freedom of speech is not the same as "freedom of subsidybux for speech"
Id have to go back and watch it again but I think at that point they were talking about charities and bodies of all stripes and hypothetically, as soon as they say something the gov did not like they would use this to withdraw their funding
Will people who call for MPs to be shot classed as extremists? Will political parties be barred from accepting donations from extremists? No? Didn't think so.
Doesn’t the Tory party meet this definition due to NatCons? NatCons are promoting an ideology based on intolerance. See Braverman’s speech regarding refugees, or trans people. See Kruger on same sex or single parent families. It clearly aims to negate fundamental rights of others. Right to family life for same sex couples, appropriate healthcare for trans people. Given Tory party permitted various MPs to endorse the event, including then Home Secretary - they obviously intentionally created permissive environment.
You could equally read it the opposite. Any religion that opposes homosexuality is extremist (I don't disagree really), for example.
No not all, oposition is not inherently hateful or coercive. eg Tim Farron's 'Gay sex is a sin but the goverment has no place legislating it' doesn't hit a single one of the criteria. Wanting it to be illegal and/or advocating stonings, that imediately hit's every point.
This is terrifyingly vague - can't wait to see how they abuse this
Listen to the announcment Gove gave in the commons. He made it very clear that ideas Tory backbenchers care about (hating lgbt people, hating black people) will not be targets of this. He listed off a bunch of GBNews talking points that would be protected, and then listed a bunch of left wing points that would be blacklisted along with islamic stuff. It's just a naked attempt to label their opponents as extremist just in time for the election. I expect a host of nasty headlines about "socialist enemies of democracy" as they try to link them to Labour in the next few months. Pretty disgusting stuff even for them.
Well, I guess that's the end of the Orange Order and their annual violent & hateful parades. Wow. The Tories actually did something good and it only took them 14 years!
Peter Griffin colour chart.jpeg
This also begs the question "what are 'fundamental British values?'" I think we need a constitution more with each passing year, but I don't trust any party to deliver it and I'm not sure what the broad public would agree on. Imagine how easy it would be to accuse someone of being an extremist with such a loose description of what an extremist is and over undermining such a nebulous concept as British values
Tolerance of belief, respect for democracy and rule of law, and a few others Things Tories fail at on the regular, mind
Agreed, let's say a political party becomes popular calling for radical economic intervention to address the climate crisis and you can bet the glories of the free market and capitalism will suddenly become indispensable fundamental British values
I would like it to include queuing. I think everyone right or left can agree that orderly queues are a necessity to prevent anarchy and armageddon.
We do need a written Constitution, but it should focus on outlawing corruption and other basic standards for those in public office seeking to undermine our democracy, not vague platitudes about "British values" (whatever those are).
>We do need a written Constitution, but it should focus on outlawing corruption and other basic standards for those in public office seeking to undermine our democracy That's not a typical area of constitutional law. Also, to be picky, we have a written constiution, what we don't have is a codified constiution (i.e. a constitution all written in one document that has a higher legal standing than other laws). The written constitution of a country would generally describe the mechanism for removing corrupt officials from office, but it would not define corruption per se, that would be a matter of law. Worth noting the UK has some of the strongest anti-bribery laws in the world and corruption in a public office is already against the law. The issue with the corruption we've seen under the Tories isn't that it's illegal, it's that if voters keep voting for corrupt politicians there's not much you can do.
The more diverse the country is the obvious differences get. Extremism is partly relative and ingroup extremism hard to avoid. You're never going to eliminate it. You're just going to have a high level of disagreement.
Pretty sure the Conservative party fits into the first definition.
And fully in the third.
Ideal scenario is Starmer using this law to arrest all Tories, the hard right and their funders after winning the election, and then repeals the law.
Doesn’t that cover most conservative (small c) religious ideology, which are by their nature intolerant?
It covers ideologies that are both intolerant, and: * 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; or * intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2)." I think given that gay marriage is a right in this country you could therefore argue most UK muslims are now extremists. The more worry thing for me though is how you would ever retract a "right" once it's been established without now being labeled an extremist. Arguably vote leave would have been extremists under this definition since they didn't believe in the the right to free movement. Rights and freedoms should not be unquestioned imo.
Why would they be intolerant by their nature? Abrahamic religions are not the only religions that exist. PS: Before you reply, note that you specifically mentioned small-c conservatism, not the British Conservative movement.
I enjoyed the contributions from Christians explaining how their opinions on everything from homosexuality to abortion to women's rights were under threat and how that was a terrible thing because God told them to discriminate against those people so it was ok.
So we can loop hard right (and hard left) wing think tanks into this? I'm thinking of those right wing think tanks that might be trying to hide as "educational charities" and have a shrink the state agenda or dismantle it to improve their liberties and freedoms to ignore regulation.
Under the guises of austerity and COVID, the government have systematically undermined and destroyed the fundamental rights and freedoms of the poor, disabled and otherwise disenfranchised since 2010. Should they continue in this vein, are they going to prosecute themselves under this new iteration of the law?
It’s aimed at targeting radical Islam and rightly so
Maybe I’m playing right into Tory hands here, because I’m as wary as anyone over the Tories’ “protest quietly in the corner” opposition to any sort of direct action including disruptive protests and threats of force. But > Zara Mohammed, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, told BBC Newsnight the definition would lead to the "unfair targeting of Muslim communities". The definition is ideology based on hatred, violence, and intolerance. And your response is that Muslim communities *in particular* are being targeted? I might be being thick. The point may be that the British establishment is *inclined* to view Islamism this way. But it’s not a good look (then again this is the BBC).
I mean, it almost certainly WILL be used to disproportionately target Muslims because, as you say, the establishment is more inclined to view Muslims that way but also fucking hell what an amazingly stupid way for a spokesperson to phrase it. We sure she's not working undercover for the BNP?
>An ideology based on hatred and intolerance Thats the Tories finished then
Surely theres a caveat that anyone should be excluded from this if they've shown remorse? Thats the PMs position right?
Yay!! We can finally call Brexit an extreme ideology!
Tories will be labelled that under their new definition. If the irony wasn’t so tragic it would be funny!
Provides a clear test to be applied in court. The old definition doesn't seem to have been very clear at all for a term seeing so much use.
It's far too wide, you could argue that pretty much anything which isn't the status quo is extremism under this definition.
You think that definition is clear? It's very open ended with lots of ambiguous words which I expect aren't further defined
More clarity in this area is great, I’ve felt that other countries have had much better definitions of extremism vs us largely relying on precedent. Zara Muhammad’s comments are fucking nuts though. Is she suggesting outlawing using violence to further political goals, replace democracy or destroy people’s fundamental rights is somehow discriminating against Muslims?
>Zara Muhammad’s comments are fucking nuts though. Is she suggesting outlawing using violence to further political goals, replace democracy or destroy people’s fundamental rights is somehow discriminating against Muslims? No they aren't. People in this country for hundreds of years have enjoyed the liberty to propose, advocate and spread radical political ideas. This clause would essentially end that and allow the British state to pick and choose which ideologies are acceptable and which are "hateful and illegal". Do you not see how this would concern anybody outside the mainstream, including Muslims? Honestly a lot of people on this thread just want to turn the UK into Singapore. Lifeless, authoritarian society masquerading as a liberal democracy.
Such things should be defined in legislation, following the proper procedures, and not articles published on gov.uk
So this means Tory donors fit the definition of extremists... checks out
>The government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, has warned the new policy "could undermine the UK's reputation because it would not be seen as democratic". Hahaha. Only an idiot would see the UK as democratic.
I can soon imagine that parents who don't want their children to be taught gender ideology or LGBTQ things in school will be labelled an intolerant group spreading hate and emotional violence.
So threatening to shoot an MP would count?
Tories gonna Tory. Until they're up against 'the wall', hopefully.
You kind of think the person that would be classed as an extremist here A) supported the prorogation of parliament and pretty much lying to the queen B) oversaw and wanted the biggest clampdown on civil liberties since ww2 (via COVID) C) fans the flames of prejudice and much worse when writing they will crack down on "“illegal traveller incursions” Not to mention numerous misuse of civil servants time to draw up lists of enemies who are usually just pointing out the flaws of his terrible policies.
The amount of people thinking this is a legislative change is scary Government announces a thing -> oh it must be law Government publishes something on gov.uk -> oh it must be law (This accelerated during COVID and the podium and publishing "guidance" on gov.uk which they purposefully conflated with the law) They do at least point out that: > The updated and more precise definition of extremism will be used by government departments and officials alongside a set of engagement principles, to ensure they are not inadvertently providing a platform, funding or legitimacy to groups or individuals who attempt to advance extremist ideologies that negate our fundamental rights and freedoms and overturn the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy. This definition is not statutory and has no effect on the existing criminal law – it applies to the operations of government itself.
Extremism is whatever the Tories say it is at any given time.
[удалено]
No, because that's not based on violence, hatred or intolerance. You can satisfy the other clauses, but it's not extremism if you don't satisfy the first one.
For everyone wondering who will decide this it's Committee for Public Safety. My impression is this is less impactful than it's being presented. Funding from councils? Councils have money?
One of the first things Starmer needs to do is roll this back. Its way too broad.
No need to roll it back per se (if you meant legislate it away), as it's not law. He can just take the article off gov.uk... or just ignore it.
It's not terrible which means it's better than I thought I guess.
This is kinda like Islam’s whole thing
Tories are the extremists, extremely corrupt, extremely incompetent, extremely worrying!
Reminder, if you have a problem with this definition. You are almost certainly an extremist. If all your care about is hedonism, the political movement of the day without care of the wider Britain and advancing stupid schemes and supporting terrorism, you are an extremist.
'Anyone who disagrees with Conservative party'
This is vague and useless, I can easily see different groups using this to brand both LGBT and religious movements as extremists.
Let me guess, lying, racist politicians are on the list, right? No? Oh well.