The current Conservative government has today announced a new and amended definition of extremism to replace the former definition originally coined for the 2011 Prevent Strategy. The new definition reads as follows:

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: 

1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

Let’s deconstruct this…

Ideology based on violence or hatred

There are many ideologies or even theological beliefs, including those held by dominant Western/Global Northern religious institutions that are based on both violence and hatred. One only has to look at the actions of the Catholic Inquisition for examples on how religion has been historically weaponised to justify the worst of humanity and treatment of its own kind. The most well-known (in Western nations) biblical accounts carry violent and hate-related teachings; references to stoning, burning, hanging, crucifixion, and of course the ultimate traumatic consequences of disobeying its messages: eternal fire. Even the ways in which New Testament, which underpins Catholicism, is misinterpreted and often warped to validate hatred towards those making choices that don’t conform to heteronormative ideas around gender and sexuality (for instance) are ignored, sidelined, and most certainly will not lead to repercussion under this new definition.

Ideology based on intolerance

A very vague and subjective concept. Who defines the version of intolerance that is being understood here? Intolerance towards what exactly? Conversely, what does the opposite suggest that the individuals and groups in question are “tolerating”, if anything?

Negating or destroying the fundamental rights and freedoms of others

Should the process of negating someone’s rights and freedoms really be cause for facing criminal or other persecutory sanction? If that is the case, then perhaps this definition can apply equally to political decision-making…let’s look at a prime and contemporary example: the rights and freedoms of refugees entering UK borders. Are the actions of this government in not only denying genuine refugees asylum to remain in this country, but then deporting them to Rwanda (a country which has a historically horrendous human rights record), not an example of the negation or destruction of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others? Whose rights and freedoms are truly being protected under this new definition, and by default, whose rights and freedoms is this government considering as being “worthy” of negation or destruction?

Undermining the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights

A completely paradoxical statement. Firstly, how is “undermining” defined here? As an academic and lecturer of criminology in a higher education institution, it is my ultimate responsibility to ensure that I promote critical thinking. Critical students often question systems that oppress. What we have sadly seen over the past 14 years in the UK is gradual erosion of the same “liberal” parliamentary democracy, by a government that themselves claim to be ideologically opposed to anything liberal. Even by definition, the concept of conservatism rejects core liberal values that we all benefit from, let alone the version of Thatcherite conservatism being still imposed onto the UK public. Are the actions of the serving political Party not undermining the apparent system they claim to be protecting under this definition? Where do we draw the line between being critical, or engaging in critical thought and debate, and “undermining” what is already being undermined and eroded?

Intent: aiming, promoting, advancing, creating permissive environments

All of these buzzwords that we assume have a definitive, universal and concrete meaning are based on impossible abilities to understand the operation of someone’s mind. One only needs to engage with those employed in fields where the effects of these types of verbs need to be forensically analysed to understand the difficulty in establishing intent. Take for instance those making charging decisions in policing or other law enforcement agencies, or even legal sectors. Charging or prosecuting individuals or groups based on “intent” or “attempt” is notoriously difficult and often avoided entirely. The reason is clear – an eventual jury of one’s peers is very unlikely to be persuaded that those working in law enforcement or legal sectors have mystical abilities to determine whether said person(s) charged intended for a certain outcome based simply on behaviour. How then are we, as a society, expected to police one another? How is any individual, institution, enforcer of this definition expected to clearly distinguish between what does or does not constitute “promoting” or “advancing” certain views?

Long-lasting ramifications

No doubt some reading this will be rather less sceptical of this new definition, perhaps even suggesting “well, none of this has to do with the reason why the change has taken place in the first place; increased radicalisation in the midst of the Israel-Hamas war”. Of course there is a deep concern in this country, as there rightly should be, regarding an increase in hate crime targeted at both Muslim and Jewish populations as a result of the current conflict. Of course the situation in Palestine is dire and we know that thousands of innocent civilians have so far been killed. But we should be mindful that this kind of discursive response by the UK government comes with serious caveats and very concerning long-term repercussions for human rights in this country.

There are already warnings of the disastrous ramifications this could have on policing of protests and acts of civil disobedience, not least due to the fact that the vague definition of ‘extremism’ in this announcement can easily seep across to other social movements that might be critical of the current or successive governments; groups that may simply be exerting their rights to exercise freedom of peaceful assembly and association with others.

Further to this, as an academic, I have a deep concern with the wording around creation of a “permissive environment”; will we end up in a punitive dystopia where governments will begin to involve themselves in the curricula of higher education institutions? Will politicians endorse themselves with rights to exercise control over what university students are taught, or over the appropriateness of pedagogical practices? Where will that leave our collective aims in promoting freedom of thought, expression, and critical thinking? What will a society look like where swathes of students one day graduate from anthropological, philosophical or social scientific disciplines only to be incapable of thinking critically about the world in which they live?

Perhaps that is exactly the ultimate aim here…slowly suppressing a population into passive submission to a growing autocracy being shaped right under our noses…