Prominent experts, including former Conservative home secretaries, are cautioning against using extremism for political point scoring amid Michael Gove’s upcoming anti-extremism plan announcement. The Guardian has more.
Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd are among a dozen signatories to a joint statement warning about the risks of politicising anti-extremism, just days before the Communities Secretary unveils his proposals.
Others who signed the statement include Brendan Cox, the widower of the MP Jo Cox and co-founder of Survivors Against Terror, Neil Basu, the former head of Counter-Terrorism Policing, and Richard Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff.
The warning comes days before Gove is set to publish the Government’s new official definition of extremism, which critics say will be so broad that it risks exacerbating community tensions and leaves ministers open to legal challenge.
The statement said: “In the run-up to a General Election, it’s particularly important that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short-term tactical advantage.
“We urge the Labour Party and the Conservative Party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election.”
Patel told the Guardian: “It is really important that we do not malign the wrong people through the wrong definitions. We haven’t seen anything yet from the Government, but it is easy, as we have seen historically, to hide behind labels or definitions which sometimes end up being counterproductive.
“None of this should ever be political. It has to strike the right balance between free speech and how we bring communities together.” …
Gove’s new definition of extremism will classify individuals or groups as extremist if they seek to undermine Britain’s system of liberal democracy. The Communities Secretary is set to instruct ministers and officials to cut off contact with groups or individuals who breach the new definition, and local authorities are expected to follow suit.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Gove’s new definition of extremism will classify individuals or groups as extremist if they seek to undermine Britain’s system of liberal democracy
Liberal Democracy? What? We have no such thing.
We have an illiberal Kleptocracy, descending into Ill-Liberal globalist fascism.
So now, during the next scamdemic, from the non existing flying virus, generated by the non existing climate thingy, if I protest, post, or march, I will be a threat to this ‘thriving Liberal democracy’ and jailed, or maybe gassed?
To state the obvious, this entire nonsense of a system needs to be pulled down, the useless plod, Home office, border farce control, MHRA, the National Death Service, the Quangos, Pharmament etc etc etc.
You got it in one Ferdill.
“We all follow the Settled Science / “acceptable” opinions!”
Vote for anyone, you still get the WEF Uniparty!
Now, naughty DS readers, we’re coming for YOU!!!
Does this mean that the Government wii be by definition extremist?
Consensus cannot be maintained because it does not exist. The elite want to suppress majority opinion and permit or even encourage Muslim campaigns against us and against Israel.
the Tories know they’ve lost middle England so they seek office by out doing Labour in the vain hope of securing electoral support from them, from the blob and from Guardian and BBC audiences. They are so insular they believe these outcomes are possible.
Gove the ultimate COVID commie, this man is utterly a creature of the system.
I do hope Gove will have much more time after the election to fawn, revoltingly, on little Saint Greta.
There’s nothing genuinely liberal about the Establishment and the Authoritarian Uni-Party of Westminster.
Never mind not politicising it, why is the state concerned with extremism per se at all? There is criminal activity which may be individual or at a group level- we should be concerned with any situation where there is credible evidence that crimes have been committed or are planned, not policing opinion. Policing “extremism” is just another general warrant of the kind that the crown used in the North American colonies which was subsequently wisely made unconstitutional by the founding fathers.
“Gove’s new definition of extremism will classify individuals or groups as extremist if they seek to undermine Britain’s system of liberal democracy.”
And who will determine or define “undermine?” Further, what constitutes “seek to?” The mission statements of most public bodies contain guff about ‘striving,’ ‘aiming,’ ‘aspiring,’ and even ‘seeking,’ but these are get out words for the times they fail to meet their own standards.
Is Govey aiming to set up some “Definition Panels?”
Has Govey determined the sanctions for breaches and have said breaches been categorised for severity?
“The Communities Secretary is set to instruct ministers and officials to cut off contact with groups or individuals who breach the new definition, and local authorities are expected to follow suit.”
So rather than maintain dialogue barriers will be established. This all sounds one party state to me.
“local authorities are expected to follow suit.”
I’ll bet they are.
“Your central government grants will be cut by 5% if you do not comply.”
Oh, thank you Mr Gove.
This little enterprise has Davos Deviants written all over it.
And we “belligerents” will be extremists, anyone that “dares” to question the prevailing state orthodoxy. 2024 is 1984 delayed.
Precisely.
Gove’s new definition of extremism will classify individuals or groups as extremist if they seek to undermine Britain’s system of liberal democracy.
Perfect. Classifying groups as extremist if they seek (or actually do) behead British people is just too narrowly focussed. It’s absolutely unsuitable for thought-policing, more aggressive internet censorship and outlawing extreme right-wing extremist groups constructed for the purpose of creating the illusion that they exist. Insisting that radicalized muslims peacefully decapitating their supposed fellow countrymen would pose a public danger is a sign of structural islamphobia, anyway. People only die from that because they’re racists!
This mirrors similar endeavours by the current, far-left German government almost to the letter. Did ‘UN experts’ again create the wording?
People would be wise to pay less attention to “extremism” accusations and more time and attention, on the bent politicians and judicial.