Leaked documents have revealed that Michael Gove is expected to declare a contentious proposal this week to bar people and organizations from participating in public affairs if they are deemed to be subverting the UK’s liberal democratic system. However, the government is concerned about the potential for a legal dispute.
Officials working for Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, have drawn up plans for “trailblazer” departments to pilot the scheme, according to documents that have been circulated to the Home Office and Downing Street and seen by the Observer.
Groups and persons who violate the new official explanation of extremism will not be allowed to attend meetings or interact with government officials, high-level government workers, advisory committees, or receive funding.
Councils will be expected to follow the government’s lead, cutting any financial ties or support to individuals or groups that have been categorised as extremist.
The proposed updated version of extremism, initially brought to light by the Observer in November, states that behaviors which may be considered extremist include trying to disrupt, exploit, or weaken the UK’s liberal democratic system in order to benefit or harm certain groups, as well as endangering individual rights or facilitating the promotion of extremism.
In private memos, Gove’s staff acknowledge the possibility of a legal dispute. Gove is already encountering significant resistance to the proposals, including from various organizations concerned with protecting individual rights, officials, and certain high-ranking Conservative Members of Parliament.
An official who has reviewed the proposals stated that the government plans to implement this without seeking input from the public or adequately involving religious leaders. They believe it will not be successful.
Rishi Sunak is implementing new strategies to combat organizations that the government has identified as extremist. This is part of his efforts to eliminate Islamist extremists and far-right groups.
In his address outside of 10 Downing Street on March 1, he cautioned about the potential dangers of the streets being commandeered by small factions and protests turning into displays of fear, coercion, and premeditated acts of aggression.
Organizations and individuals with valid intentions may be labeled as extremists, leading to a limitation of freedom of expression, causing unease among civil liberty advocates.
Certain members of the Conservative party are also concerned that this could potentially lead to the prohibition of socially conservative organizations, such as those that are against same-sex marriage or abortion.
Akiko Hart, director of Liberty, stated that this government has a recurring behavior of choosing not to interact with groups that they do not align with.
It is crucial that those in positions of authority do not suppress the voices of the individuals who will be impacted the most by their decisions.
The vetting scheme for the new policy has not yet been established. The briefing documents suggest that “trailblazer” departments will pilot the scheme. It is expected that the vetting units will check individuals and groups under new standards, which include demonstrating “any of the behaviours set out in the 2024 definition of extremism”.
The documents from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities caution that there are potential risks with this approach. These risks include a higher likelihood of legal challenges if we release the principles before the due diligence system is fully operational.
According to Robin Simcox, who serves as the government’s commissioner for countering extremism, London should not continue to be allowed to become a forbidden area for Jews every weekend due to the recurring pro-Palestinian protests, as he stated in a recent article published in the Telegraph.
The Times spoke to a representative from the Board of Deputies of British Jews who stated that although numerous British Jews did not feel secure in central London during the protests, he did not agree with labeling these areas as “no-go zones.”
In 2011, the government’s Prevent strategy defined extremism as the deliberate resistance to essential values of British society, such as democracy, the rule of law, individual freedom, and the acceptance and understanding of diverse faiths and beliefs.
In 2016, the government introduced a bill aimed at addressing the problem of extreme ideologies. However, the bill was put on hold when the government was unable to present a definition of extremism that was legally accepted.
According to Alex Carlile, a member of the crossbench and previously responsible for independently reviewing terrorism legislation, there is a potential danger in suggesting a revised definition.
He stated that having a clear definition would promote more uniformity in situations such as the handling of demonstrations. However, an inadequate definition could potentially exacerbate the situation.
Lord Carlile stated that he believed a new definition was not needed as there are already laws in place to address extremist groups. However, he did suggest that additional guidance for law enforcement on how to handle these groups would be beneficial.
Eight groups, including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Palestine Action, were identified in the initial documents as potential targets for a new definition of extremism.
Internal documents state that the MCB would be taken into account based on its past actions and failure to denounce them, as well as its affiliation with individuals displaying extremist behaviors without being properly questioned.
The government has yet to confirm if it will specify particular groups when introducing the new definition of extremism. This could potentially lead to a legal dispute over the banning of individuals and organizations from receiving funding or interacting with public entities, as the definition is not officially recognized by law.
A MCB spokesperson said: “Extremism and terrorism are serious matters that require real leadership and not cynical electioneering. To suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain would fall under arbitrary definitions of extremism is offensive, ludicrous and dangerous.
“I, on behalf of a diverse group of British Muslims, am part of a democratic organization. It is contradictory that the ruling party, who have been accused of promoting Islamophobia, is now pointing fingers at others and accusing them of extremism. We will closely watch the situation and consider taking legal action.”
Palestine Action stated that no revised interpretation would hinder their efforts to advocate for their cause.
A representative from the government stated: “We are taking measures to prevent any extremist groups or individuals from being able to use their actions and interactions with the government as a platform. More information will be provided soon.”
Source: theguardian.com
