Britain’s government published a new definition of extremism on Thursday that it intends to use to cut ties or funding to groups deemed to have crossed the line, but which critics fear could curtail campaigners’ rights and curb free speech.
Michael Gove, a senior cabinet minister, said in a statement that the move was intended to “protect democratic values” by being “clear and precise in identifying the dangers posed by extremism.”
Some advocacy groups and legal experts greeted the announcement with concern, warning that it could affect the rights of those deemed by the government to meet the definition. The only way to challenge such a decision is likely to be through the courts.
The initiative has also stirred a wider debate about how, before a general election that must be held by early next year, British politicians choose to deal with domestic tensions that have risen since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and Israel’s subsequent bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Hundreds of thousands of people have attended pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London and, according to the government, there has been a significant rise in both antisemitic incidents and anti-Muslim hate cases.
Even before the details of the new extremism proposals were made public, they had provoked criticism from rights groups and concern from three former Conservative Party home secretaries, whose remit included national security, who warned against using the issue of extremism for political advantage.
Leaders from the Church of England also weighed in. The archbishop of Canterbury — Justin Welby, who is the head of the church and a peer in the House of Lords — and the archbishop of York said in a statement on Tuesday that the new definition “not only inadvertently threatens freedom of speech, but also the right to worship and peaceful protest, things that have been hard won and form the fabric of a civilized society.”
They added: “Crucially, it risks disproportionately targeting Muslim communities, who are already experiencing rising levels of hate and abuse.”
Under the new plan, extremism will be 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 U.K.’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights,” or intentionally create a “permissive environment” for others to do so.
In its statement, the government said that its new definition was not statutory and would have no effect on existing criminal law. But it added that “the government will undertake a robust process to assess groups for extremism against the definition, which will then inform decisions around government engagement and funding.”
Critics said it was that element — the idea that whichever government is in power could blacklist groups it considers extremist, and ban them from meeting with any government bodies or officials, or receiving taxpayer funding — that could threaten free speech and civil liberties.
David Anderson, a senior lawyer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation for the government, told the BBC that there were many questions that still needed to be answered about the policy.
“The definition remains extremely broad,” he said. “For example, it catches people who advance an ideology which negates the fundamental rights of others. One can imagine both sides of the trans debate leaping on that one.”
Mr. Anderson, who is also a member of the House of Lords, said he did not take much comfort from reassurances that the definition related only to interactions with government. “I think you are also affecting a lot of people potentially by branding them as extremists,” he said, adding that it “affects potentially the freedoms and reputations of an awful lot of people.”
Speaking in Parliament, Mr. Gove identified some of the organizations whose activities will be assessed in line with the new definition, including the British National Socialist Movement, which has been described by the government as a white supremacist group and Patriotic Alternative which opposes multiculturalism and immigration.
Mr. Gove said that those that “promote neo-Nazi ideology, argue for forced repatriation, a white ethno-state and the targeting of minority groups for intimidation, are precisely the type of groups about which we should be concerned.”
He also named the Muslim Association of Britain, which says it is dedicated to “nurturing, supporting and leading Muslim grass roots contributions” toward positive social change; Cage, which has urged the release of prisoners in Guantánamo Bay and campaigned against some antiterrorism laws; and MEND, which describes its aims as helping to empower and encourage British Muslims. Such groups, Mr. Gove added, “give rise to concern because of their Islamist orientation and views.”
The Muslim Council of Britain condemned the approach as undemocratic and potentially illegal. “A broad cross-section of British society will see through the government’s divisive extremism proposals,” said Zara Mohammed, its secretary general.
Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International’s chief executive, described the plan as a “dangerously sweeping approach to labeling groups and individuals ‘extremist.’”
“This attempt to stigmatize legitimate, peaceful political activity is taking us further down the road toward authoritarianism,” he added.
Some Conservative lawmakers also warned against any measures that could threaten free speech. Miriam Cates, a Conservative Party lawmaker, told The Times of London that she believed radical Islamism to be the most significant threat to Britain’s national security, but that it should be addressed “by properly upholding our existing laws and proscribing groups that have links to terrorism.”
“In a pluralistic democracy, there are, of course, a wide range of opinions that many of us would consider extreme,” she added. “But the state should only intervene if there is an actual threat of physical harm. Otherwise, we erode our fundamental freedoms of speech, association, expression and religion.”
The government tried to address such concerns in its statement on Thursday, saying that the plan was “not about silencing those with private and peaceful beliefs — not will it affect free speech, which will always be protected.”
A list of groups deemed to have fallen foul of the new definition is expected to be released in the coming weeks after an assessment process during which they will be allowed to make representations, Downing Street said.
The initiative follows a speech by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak this month in which he spoke of “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” in Britain since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack in Israel. Mr. Sunak appealed to people in Britain to come together “to combat the forces of division and beat this poison.”
Mr. Sunak had previously given an outspoken warning at a meeting of senior police officers that “mob rule is replacing democratic rule.”
In an awkward juxtaposition for Mr. Sunak, the announcement on extremism came in the same week that it emerged that the Conservative Party’s largest donor had reportedly said that Diane Abbott, a prominent Black lawmaker, “should be shot.”
Asked on Thursday whether such comments would run afoul of the new extremism definition, Mr. Gove said: “I wouldn’t want to conflate those motivated by an extremist ideology with an individual comment, however horrific, which had quite rightly been called out and which has quite rightly led to an apology.”