Gove's plan to update description of "extremism"

[AdamRyan]

Looked for a thread on this, as I thought it would be a hot topic on here but I can't find one!

Michael Gove is planning to update the definition of extremism:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/groups-fear-they-will-be-caught-out-in-new-definition-of-extremism-13092141

The updated definition is going to, according to a source, be the "promotion or advancement of ideology based on hatred, intolerance or violence or undermining or overturning the rights or freedoms of others, or of undermining democracy itself".

Miriam Cates is concerned this could affect GC activists or people with religious views

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/05/senior-tories-criticise-no-10-plans-to-broaden-extremism-definition

Any attempt to define extremism or fundamental British values is very risky because one person’s extremism is another person’s sincerely held and lawful belief,” Cates told the Guardian.“An obvious is example is where I regularly call trans rights activists extremists for believing a man can be a woman just because he says he is, and that this gives him the right to enter women-only spaces, but equally I am called an extremist for believing there are only two biological sexes and that you can’t change sex.”

I don't like the inclusion of "intolerance" in a definition of extremism and I'm worried this could be used to silence people with particular views the government of the day doesn't like, e.g. GC views.

Surely this is just Gove willy waving at this stage? The chances of getting anything through before the election is slim and they’ll be prioritising nonsense like their Rwanda legislation.

I don't know, apparently its "guidance" so probably doesn't need a bill, but then again it says it does need cross government approval.

We will see. It's all a bit orwellian though with certain orgs likely to be effectively "cancelled" and prevented from talking to government. I can easily see this being used against feminist groups

Surely this is just Gove willy waving at this stage?

I hope he doesn't!

I can see the TRA nutters in Starmer's cabinet finding this very handy.

But gender critical feminism has already been held to be legally WORIADS (Worthy Of Respect In A Democratic Society), surely?

This was on twitter last week.

There seems to be significant concern within the Tory party with regards to free speech. Thus I think Gove will struggle with getting the support it needs.

The wording is incredibly vague and open to interpretation. It's one of those laws which could be misused in the future by subsequent governments as a result.

It's a whole 'who censors the censors' type debate and the concept of what 'harm' is, is like how long is a piece of string.

It's unworkable.

We don't need more bad law.

Yes. In theory.

But also if the law gets changed this might change.

If the Conservatives change the wording of the policy that won't matter. It looks like it's not about discrimination, more about preventing certain groups engaging with the public sector and shutting down "wrongthink" of various kinds

There is a good summary here
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/michael-gove-extremism-free-speech-2949907

Under proposals being considered by ministers, the new definition of extremism would ban anyone in Whitehall, Government bodies or quangos from engaging with or funding groups or individuals thought to be linked to extremism in some way.
The rule would be non-statutory, so would only affect the organisations and individuals that receive funding or engage with Government bodies, officials and ministers. There will be no new criminal offences.

I can see how easily this could be used to signal the end of events such as 'Let Women Speak', very surprised this is coming from the Tories.

at this rate the whole of mumsnet will have to be arrested

Does anyone know where Gove stands on the whole twaw thing? I think his ex(?) wife is a bit terfy.

undermining or overturning the rights or freedoms of others

The trouble with this wording is that there are a few areas where the rights of different groups are in direct conflict with each other. For example, will it be illegal for women to campaign for the option of a single-sex support group at a rape crisis centre? Or will it be illegal to campaign against this?

The long legal battle between a gay couple and the Christian owners of a Northern Irish bakery also springs to mind. Which protected characteristic should prevail? Also, the right to freedom of speech in the UK already has certain limitations. Should these rights and restrictions apply equally to everyone, or should the presence or absence of protected characteristics grant some people greater freedom of speech than others?

Do TRA's come under the new definition of extremism? Just curious.

Gove is incompetent and should not be in any position of power.

Gove is incompetent and shouldn't be near power.

Unfortunately it is also true that Gove is still more competent than a hell of a lot more MPs.

The last couple of days have shown why this is bonkers. Gove can't answer if Hester should be covered by his new definition, but thinks we should practice the Christian values of forgiveness.

Labour have also said they will "inherit" the change which surely must worry those who believe Labour is "captured" because it will give a mechanism to categorise bodies like LGB alliance as extremist and banned from engaging with government.

It's a very short sighted move.

It's all about who controls the meaning of words.

If you define 'intolerance' and 'hatred' as women wanting the right to single sex spaces so they can access public life, then this law can be used to harm women.

We've already seen people who say transwomen are men being branded as extreme hateful bigots, whilst those who physically attack and abuse women are labelled 'progressive'. The actions show which side is hateful in reality but it depends who is deciding. We've now had multiple court cases where women being reasonable have been branded as extremist and have had to go to ETs to show that actually it's the exact opposite.

The law should be based in fact and material reality and a common understanding of words - we run into terrible problems as a society if it is not - so any law like this needs cast iron definitions of what 'intolerance' means etc.

So are you in agreement with Gove's proposal? Or is it a proposal that's OK for the Conservatives to make, but would be dangerous under a Labour government? The latter Implies inadequate safeguards to me.

AutumnCrow · 11/03/2024 21:19

But gender critical feminism has already been held to be legally WORIADS (Worthy Of Respect In A Democratic Society), surely?

I have been pondering Labour's plan to put TQ at the forefront, in medical treatment and the victims of hate crime. How does that square with the precedent set at Maya's tribunal appeal? It's certainly going to be in conflict with the ruling that people don't have to say "TWAW" and are entitled to say, "TWAM."

Would a new law just over-ride that, or would it be sent back by The Lords?

Ben Sixsmith has written an article about it in the Critic

https://thecritic.co.uk/goves-new-definition-of-extremism-is-extremely-silly/

Aren't Labour promising to do something simlar themselves, but calling it " hate" rather than "extremism". At least the extremist groups are going to be very specifically defined, and even named; wheras the concept of "hate" is fairly random and subjective?

If elected, Labour can withdraw it. Simple.

Going by the R4 interviews today, it seems that this guidance is primarily in response to concerns about groups putatively espousing Islamic extremism and some far right groups. And then linking this to withdrawal of govt funding. Not sure LWS receive govt funding do they?

but hands up, I’m going by the R4 coverage and nothing more [edit for this acknowledgment]

I don't think so If they are I've missed it.