Gove's new definitions of "extremism" do NOT apply to gender critical campaigners or trans activists,

I'm generally not in favour of new laws where there are already effective one in place.

I do think there is something around the idea that quasi-governmental bodies shouldn't be doing things like taking advice from extremist groups. With lobbying being now a very powerful way to wield influence, you also get these groups which are not directly controlled by the democratic processes being attacked.

If there are groups that should not be allowed to do that, it probably needs to be done in a way that is accountable rather than just what people decide seems right.

I reckon it's a good rule of thumb that new legislation is seldom required or desirable, when there are plenty of existing laws that aren't properly enforced. But, of course, it's "being seen to be doing something", which, as Jim Hacker knew, is the most important thing in politics.

There's an article in Spiked on this, Gove's proposals, some would argue only affect a few groups. But that's how it starts, that's how it always starts.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/15/hope-not-hate-sees-extremism-everywhere/

Hope Not Hate seem obsessed with KJK, still recycling the same thin gruel to associate her with the far right.

Do the new guidelines apply to lunatics who think the Good Friday Agreement is ' treason' , eg Michael Gove ?

Yes. Part of Cates' article argues that the problem is that people are afraid to counter some extremist Islamic rhetoric, due to things like Charlie Hebdo, fatwahs, etc. So the necessary laws are there already, they're just not always being applied. Creating new laws that don't deal with that root issue - fear/favour - are more likely to backfire with unintended consequences than fix the actual problem.

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 09:03

Gove might not see GC groups as extremists, but what about when Labour get hold of it? This is quite optimistic, I think.

I fear that you are right.

Also, how can he not deem the vile stuff, which TRAs put online? Disgusting threats of rape and murder, to women who don't believe that men are women? The response is pathetic enough as it is, without more or less giving them a free pass.

And subtle judicial activism.

Lord Dennings "appalling vista" judgement - still never repudiated by any court.

https://www.mactheknife.org/Quotations/Appalling_Vista.html

Then, referring back to Miller vs College of Policing judgment mentioned above, what about the chilling effect that someone thinking of publicly coming out as Gender Critical means that they also come out as a government certified extremist?

Agree with all those pointing out how laws can end up nothing like what they were intended to be. Look at yesterday's response to the school guidelines from the EHRC that focussed solely on the Equaloity Act / GRA. therefore they decided that children of any age are entitled to the protection of the pc of gender reassignment.
Nobody who implemented those laws ever intended that sex change in children and babies should be promoted. Yet this is where we are because of unintended consequences and bad law.

Even if the proposed change doesn't give the Police specific new powers, do you think that when they go after the little old lady on Twitter for wrongthink tweets that the fact that they can now categorise her as an "extremist", according to a new government (or Gove-rnment) definition, is going to make them treat her more reasonably?

The police in various cases seem to have interpreted the judicial message sent by the Harry Miller appeal court victory which was "you don't have to fully investigate all claims of "hate" and when you do and there is no crime involved you don't have to record them against people as meaning "we need to record NCHI and to do that we now need to arrest people first". So no it's not possible to trust people to use common sense.

I'm strongly minded that Cates' interpretation is the correct one. Likewise for PPs who anticipate that the Police will use their own instincts on this which is why we're still seeing NCHIs.

I saw a brief discussion that noted voting Tory is a well established British value and tradition. So anyone who agitates against that will be deemed an extremist.

People with an interest in shit laws will remember the psychoactive substances act which had to explicitly exclude alcohol and tobacco and a CPS policy not to prosecute churches as incense fits the UK definition of a "psychoactive substance".

We are dealing here with the trade in psychoactive substances. In looking at the workings of the Bill it is necessary to consider the definition of a psychoactive substance alongside the elements of the offences in clauses 4 to 8 of the Bill. We do not believe it right to equate the effect of incense wafting through the air with the direct inhalation of fumes, for example from a solvent. Moreover, the offences only apply where a substance is likely to be consumed for its psychoactive effect. As such, the use of incense in religious services will not be covered by the Bill

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75b57440f0b67b3d5c89a2/2015-09-21-Letter-to-CLAS-re-incense.pdf

I was just trying to run some scenarios ... aiming to negate fundamental rights/freedoms ... that's debatable at root, isn't it? Not everyone agrees on fundamental rights and freedoms and those are often in conflict.

What even is 'intolerance'? Can we be intolerant about child abuse? Misogyny? Violence?

Laws need destruction tested. Get criminals to come up with scenarios. Or authors. Comedians. You need to get people to check to see what is the worst case scenario and play it through.

This seems like a brainfart of an idea, Gove. Put it away.

It isn't the views or expression of the views that is the issue, it's the behaviours, and arguably the laws already exist but are not properly or impartially applied.

For example people have been arrested re 'malicious communications' for saying that a male person is a man, and despite an enthusiastic CPS have never been successfully prosecuted because it's not against the law. But death and rape threats are scattered like confetti and are actually against the law, with zero police interest.

It's not legal to kettle people, set off smoke bombs, and have placards in public places suggesting beheading some of the populace, but we've had MPs ffs standing grinning like idiots under them.

Instead of hyperactive new legislation how about sorting out the police and properly applying the laws we have with that bit in the policy about 'without fear or favour' being actually adhered to?

Like others have said, I am wary about how these laws will be interpreted. Unless there are specific exemptions there are no guarantees.

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
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).

'a new unit - the Counter-Extremism Centre of Excellence - has been set up, to gather intelligence and identify extremist groups.'

Oh, brilliant. They can swap notes with the new Scottish Stasi. I mean, Hate Crime Centre.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68564577

Is this all a done deal? Doesn't it have to be discussed, voted on?

That article is excellent, gives a brief history of a similarly daft bill proposed by Cameron, which was defeated.

Here's Cates' article:

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-problem-with-extremism/

'In a democratic society with a plurality of beliefs and opinions it is surely impossible to establish robust legal definitions of terms such as “extremism” or “British values”. One man’s extremist is another man’s courageous champion of an unpopular cause. Many people claim that gender critical feminists are “extreme” in their belief that males should not be admitted to female spaces. Others claim trans rights activists are the real extremists with their fanatical views on the fluidity of gender.'
...
'In a free and democratic society it is foolish to detach the legal definition of “extremism” from violence and terrorism. If “extremist” opinions become illegal without manifesting as actual harm, then those who hold the pen on the legal definition of extremism acquire extraordinary powers to curtail free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of religion. History teaches us that this is the slippery slope towards authoritarianism.'
...
'The Government may well intend to use an expanded definition of extremism to tackle radical Islamism, but the fact is that any new guidance will be administered by civil servants who may seek to use the rules asymmetrically to target anyone who challenges liberal progressivism. We have seen this play out with activists’ interpretation of the Equality Act which, instead of merely preventing bigoted discrimination, has led many working in the public sector to mistakenly believe that the law provides that men who identify as women must indeed be treated as women in every circumstance.'

Oh, fuck.

They are awful. "Hope not Hate" unless it's someone we don't like.

It's the "cones hotline" phase of the government, although the stakes are far higher.

I wouldn't set any store by what the ironically named 'Hope not Hate' say.

Yes. The GRA debate in Hansard demonstrates that all the downsides were spotted and discussed but hand waved away as no, that could never happen cos no one would be that mean/insane/would let it.

This is another badly thought out huge Trojan horse and while the current incarnation of government might think they wouldn't use it to stifle other groups, you can bet your boots Labour would.