In the midst of mounting protests concerning the escalating crisis in Gaza, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has put forth proposals to revise the UK’s definition of extremism. Sunak contends that such measures are imperative as the nation’s democracy finds itself under threat from antisemitic and Islamophobic extremists.
Yet, contrary to Sunak’s assertions, critics argue that policies like these pose a greater risk to democracy itself.
The UK presently employs a definition of extremism in its counterterrorism efforts. While the police are traditionally at the forefront of these efforts, the government’s Prevent strategy now mandates various other bodies, including local authorities, educational institutions, and healthcare providers, to play a role in preventing individuals from being drawn into terrorism.
However, these measures have raised concerns as they thrust teachers and NHS staff into the frontline of counterterrorism efforts, diverting their focus from their primary responsibilities.
The current definition of extremism, as outlined in Prevent guidance, encompasses 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. Additionally, it includes calls for the death of members of the armed forces.
Despite its presence in Prevent guidance, this definition lacks legal standing, primarily due to its vagueness and ambiguity. Consequently, enforcing this definition becomes a challenge, with considerable discretion granted to authorities, leading to inconsistent application and potential discrimination.
Sunak’s proposed update to the extremism definition aims to include the promotion or advancement of ideologies rooted in hatred, intolerance, or violence, or those that undermine the rights or freedoms of others, including democracy itself.
However, the ambiguity persists. What constitutes undermining democracy or the rights and freedoms of others? Would advocating for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights fall under this definition? Likewise, would advocating for restrictions on free speech or the right to protest be deemed extremist?
Critics argue that the existing legal framework already provides mechanisms to address unacceptable behaviour at protests. The broad scope of the Terrorism Act allows prosecution for actions posing a serious risk to public safety, while counterterrorism laws criminalise expressions of support for proscribed organisations.
Moreover, the Public Order Act addresses hate speech, and recent legislative amendments have expanded the definition of causing public nuisance, affording the police the authority to curtail disruptive protests.
In light of these existing laws, scepticism surrounds the necessity of Sunak’s proposed update. Critics view it as a political manoeuvre aimed at bolstering the government’s stance on crime and terrorism in an election year.
Moreover, the proposed expansion of the extremism definition raises concerns about its potential chilling effect on free speech and the right to protest. The vaguer the definition becomes, the greater the risk of misuse, leading individuals to self-censor for fear of being labelled extremists, particularly in workplaces subject to Prevent duties.
There is a fundamental right to disruptive protests, permitted under human rights law to ensure they garner attention. Equally, individuals are entitled to shock, offend, and disturb through speech, without being deemed extremists.
The attempt to conflate protest with extremism and terrorism undermines the legitimacy of these dissenting voices. To categorise opposition to government policies, such as advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza, as extremist risks stifling democratic discourse and eroding fundamental rights and freedoms.
As Sunak’s proposal undergoes scrutiny, it remains to be seen whether concerns regarding its potential impact on democracy and civil liberties will be addressed, or if it will further polarise an already contentious debate on extremism and free speech in the UK.
