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

[IwantToRetire]

As said in the title, despite some trying to suggest they would, Gove's new guidelines are not applicable to gender critical campaigners, trans activists, or environment protest groups.

Not sure that there is any discussion to be had, but thought it worth heading a thread with this info because there have been posts on threads saying this would / could happen.

Not sure that Gove would want to be cross questioned by either Kemi Badenoch or Suella Braverman should he have attempted it!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2024/mar/14/michael-gove-extremism-definition-video

Yes, but do the Police agree? 😏

Thanks for posting the link Retire - I couldn’t help the sarcasm in response to Gove, I mean we’ve seen police forces ignore instructions from the Home Secretary regarding NCHI recording and formally interviewing women for tweeting 🤷‍♀️ If Gove creates a legal avenue that will allow some Peeler to arrest or harass someone for expressing GC views, then it will happen. Laws and guidelines are too widely and imprecisely drafted these days and too often seek to criminalise legal speech.

If Gove creates a legal avenue that will allow some Peeler to arrest or harass someone for expressing GC views, then it will happen.

Its quite late and I haven't really read about this in detail but at the moment my understanding is that it isn't anything to do with the police.

This would be the Government saying a group or organisation is extremist and because the Government says they are it means they should not ever receive Government money or be consulted by the Government (but not I think shut down).

A group only has the option to then go for judicial review to prove they aren't extremists, rather than say a process that the Government is require to show how and in what way a group is extremist.

I haven't read anything about the police having any role, but would presumably mean newspapers etc., should never quote anything said by one of these groups.

And whilst some of us might like to see trans groups as not being allowed to influence government, it all seems back to front. If the Goverment cant work out at the time whether a group is extremist. Its almost like the accept they cant work it out for themselves so have randomly picked a few groups to say they shouldnt be spoken to, but haven't put in place any mechanism to work how they would assis groups in the future.

The groups named by Gove
Patriotic Alternative
Anti-extremism campaign group Hope Not Hate describes Patriotic Alternative as the UK's largest fascist group. Some of its followers were involved in the group National Action, which was subsequently banned under terrorism laws. Patriotic Alternative says its is promoting a patriotic view of the UK - but its critics say followers regularly espouse Nazi thinking.
British National Socialist Movement
British National Socialist Movement has been described in Parliament as a white supremacist group that originated in 1968.
Muslim Association of Britain
The MAB is the UK affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, an international and complex network of Islamist organisations. Islamism is a political ideology that believes that predominantly Muslim countries should be run according to a form of government drawn from Islam's holy book, the Quran. Islamism has many branches. Some Islamist groups are so extreme they are also terrorist - but that is not true for every such organisation. The MAB says it has long worked within the law and alongside agencies including the police.
Cage
Cage emerged as a campaign group against the "War on Terror" that was launched by President George W Bush in the wake of the 2001 attacks on the US. It explicitly campaigned against what it said were abuses perpetrated against Muslims in Afghanistan and elsewhere - but its critics say it was often acting for terrorism suspects. It has never been accused of involvement in terrorism and one of its founders has repeatedly won legal cases where he has been accused of involvement in suspect groups.
MEND
Mend, Muslim Engagement and Development, is a Muslim campaign group that tries to encourage people to get more involved in politics and is active in opposing policies that critics say perpetuate a them-and-us victim mentality. The organisation says it legitimately campaigns to protect the rights of British Muslims and has said it will take the government to court if it is named as extremist.

Miriam Cates had an article in the Critic on this that I got halfway through. Been occupied with the new Scottish Stasi this week!

Anyway. Thanks, OP, will read up.

If you read the debates in the House during the voting on the Gender Recognition Act, you'll find a large number of assurances that, years down the line, have proven to be worthless. Like UtopiaPlanitia says, the test is what the Police do with a shiny toy of a new law with wording broad enough to apply against anyone it suits the Police to go after.

Who would have foreseen two decades ago that the Police, in seeking to distract attention from their own shitty behaviour, would misuse hate-related laws to go after women behaving lawfully to please some very unpleasant trans activists?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

'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?

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).

Campaigning to repeal or amend the GRA? Campaigning against a self-ID law coming in? Arguably, both extremist.

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

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?

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.

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'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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

And subtle judicial activism.

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

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

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.

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.