The UK has introduced a new definition of extremism as confirmed by senior cabinet minister, Michael Gove, who said the move was intended to “protect democratic values” by being “clear and precise in identifying the dangers posed by extremism.”

However, some advocacy groups and legal experts warn that the rights of many will be affected, and the only route to challenge this would be through court. 

Criticism arose from rights groups alongside concern from three former Conservative Party home secretaries, who said that the introduction of this definition was for political gain.

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 released a statement that the 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.”

“Crucially, it risks disproportionately targeting Muslim communities, who are already experiencing rising levels of hate and abuse," they added.

UK to 'broaden' definition of extremism amid pro-Palestine rallies

The #UK is attempting to redefine extremism amid pro-#Palestine rallies in #London, marking a path toward the silencing of any dissent against its official government narrative. https://t.co/dNazRmJBM9

— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) November 5, 2023

Branding and banning

Extremism will be defined as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance... [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 establish a “permissive environment” for others to do so.

But after publishing the new definition, it added, “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 the idea of the government having the power to deem someone extremist that threatens free speech and civil liberties.

Senior lawyer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation for the government, David Anderson, relayed to the BBC that “the definition remains extremely broad... 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.”

Anderson also expressed, “I think you are also affecting a lot of people potentially by branding them as extremists,” noting that it “affects potentially the freedoms and reputations of an awful lot of people.”

Read more: UK Met police to be 'absolutely ruthless' with pro-Palestine rallies

Amnesty International’s chief executive, Sacha Deshmukh, saw the move as a “dangerously sweeping approach to labeling groups and individuals ‘extremist’” and that it's “another smash and grab” on human rights.

“This attempt to stigmatize legitimate, peaceful political activity is taking us further down the road toward authoritarianism,” he continued.

Another day, another excuse

Gove said that “the pervasiveness of extremist ideologies has become increasingly clear in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks and poses a real risk to the security of our citizens and our democracy.”

He blamed "right-wing and Islamist extremists who are seeking to separate Muslims from the rest of society and create division within Muslim communities.”

The new definition updates the defined term as “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.” Calling for the death of members of the armed forces was also part of it.

Miriam Cates, a Conservative Party lawmaker, conveyed to The Times of London her belief that radical Islamism is the most significant threat to the UK's national security but stated 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 said. “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 tackle the situation by saying that it is “not about silencing those with private and peaceful beliefs — not will it affect free speech, which will always be protected.”

The government is expected to announce a new set of groups it deems extremist in the coming weeks.