The government has published its new definition of extremism this morning. It says of this:
The new definition provides a stricter characterisation that government can use to make sure that extremist organisations and individuals are not being legitimised or given a platform through their interactions with government.
The definition is:
Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
-
negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
-
undermine, overturn or replace the UK's system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
-
intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).
They added, by way of explanation:
The new definition is narrower and more precise than the 2011 Prevent definition, which did not provide the detail we now need to assess and identify extremism. This new definition helps clearly articulate how extremism is evidenced through the public behaviour of extremists that advance their violent, hateful or intolerant aims.
Try as I might, the only organisation that I can think of that meets the new criteria for being an extremist organisation is the current government, populated as it is by Conservative party ministers.
They prorogued parliament, illegally.
They have sought to pass legislation contrary to international law on more than one issue
They are actively undermining devolved democracy.
They have sought to deny the vote to millions of young people on a discriminatory basis, with older people not suffering the extreme prejudice that younger people do when it comes to proving their entitlement to partake in democracy.
They openly promote division and hatred within society.
They are accepting funds from those who appear to hold racist views.
The right to freedom of speech and protest is being actively denied, including in our legal system.
Try as I might I can think of no one else so actively engaged in the pursuit of the destruction of liberal democracy in this country.
It was Goebbels who suggested that a propagandist should accuse their enemy of that of which they themselves are guilty. This is what appears to be happening here.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
What concerns me is that we could end up with a situation where we ger a new Constitution not as a result of a long and planned process but cobbled together following a major crisis.
That could end up with something far worse than the current situation
That is my fear
I prefer to stay out of speculation involving the Royal Family.
Firstly very few people really know whats going on.
Secondly what information ends up in the public domain is there because someone wants it to be, be it The Windsors, or some related faction.
A lot of it is little more than speculation by journalists looking for copy.
There are however plenty of facts and I would much rather stick to those.
One point I will make however is that there must be a serious question to be asked about the effect The Monarchy has on those who become members of The Royal Family either by birth or marriage. I do feel some pity for the children of the Prince and Princess of Wales, George in particular whose life was mapped out for him from conception and will have very little freedom to have the life he might choose.
In many of the remaining Royal Families it is clear that members have ‘gone off the rails’ in various ways as a result of the stresses of their position.
I agree, and hope I hinted at that in what I wrote
I believe this post / role has no moved beyond what is possible and that is a reason why it has to go
Frank Hester walking on water in Gove’s and Sunak’s eyes. No accountability to be had here!
Indeed the Guardian reporting Gove has refused to say whether he thinks Frank Hester is an “extremist.” No democratic accountability here in corrupt Old Blighty!
“I can think of no one else so actively engaged in the pursuit of the destruction of liberal democracy in this country.”
That’s either because you’re not very good at thinking or wilfully turning a bind eye.
So tell me, why do you turn up here in that case, let alone waste your time commenting?
Could it just be that you might not be telling the truth?
Richard,
It’s worse. He is wasting my time commenting.
🙂
Mainstream media used to hold the government of the day to account.
If they are not doing that, does that make them part of the problem?
I include BBC presenters in this, with few exceptions, we have no political journalists.
Yes, in a word
Your point about the hypocrisy of our profoundly anti-democratic and extremist Tory Government is well made.
If our Old and New media were not controlled by the rich the Tories would have been laughed into silence.
Nearly all of Trump’s rhetoric, and increasingly the rhetoric of the Tory party is based on your observation about Goebbels, although in Trump’s case it is reduced to the level of a particularly unpleasant five year old.
Your a liar. No your a liar!
Your a thief. No your a thief!
Your a bully. No your a bully!
So, where is English grammer/grammar when you need it?
So will campaigning for proportional representation be classed as extremism under the definition of ‘… replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy …’?
Good question
Or, if I may: (extract from the Guaridan):
“Gove thinks extremism means: “The promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate the fundamental rights of others, or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve these results.”
I promote/advance an ideology based on intolerance, which aims to negate the fundemental rights of ……..the rich…….to not pay their fair share of tax.
I support the creation of a permissive environment for others to achieve the apropriate taxation of the rich.
I am intolerate of the rich free-riding which they have been doing since the time of Thatcher – who indeed facilatated their free-riding.
So tory-gov ………..I’m an extremist – come & get me. The problem is there are 10s of thousands of us – extremists – I do hope you have enough jail space.
The ultimate schadenfreude will be if Gove gets this law through, then when Labour gets in they use it to ban the Conservative party and Gove in particular.
Here is an excerpt of a BBC interview with Michael Gove by Naga Munchetty: “On BBC Breakfast this morning, Munchetty asked Gove: “Please tell me, when Frank Hester allegedly said – and I want to get this quote right – ‘I don’t hate all black women at all but I think she should be shot’, is that an extremist view?
Gove replied: ‘Well, speaking as someone who was pursued by an individual who was trying to kill me and who subsequently succeeded in killing one of my friends in parliament, I take that sort of language very seriously and I think it’s unacceptable’.
That was a reference to Ali Harbi Ali, who murdered Tory MP David Amess in 2021. His trial heard how he carried out reconnaissance on other potential targets, including Gove.
But Munchetty replied: ‘I’m sorry, that’s not quite what I asked. Was that an extremist view and would it fall under these new definitions of extremism? I can repeat the quote with you if you wish’.
The minister said: ‘I take these things exceptionally seriously, and because I take them seriously it would be the case that any assessment about whether or not an individual or organisation is extremist would have to follow a rigorous process. It wouldn’t be me making a decision on the basis of a quote, however horrific, it would be a due diligence process that would be conducted very carefully’.
Munchetty then hit back: ‘It would be down to the government of the time, which you are part of.’
Gove said: ‘It would be down to an appropriate process that would follow independent advice looking at the evidence. But I take the use of these threats very seriously, knowing all too well the dangers that some people in public life have had to face.’”
This is classic, smooth Govespeak, following the principles of the Oracle at Delphi (Richard provides the Gove principles above). When deciphering Gove’s explanation of the process of judgement (the part that really matters), we should be clear the implication of the tiny gaps Gove carefully leaves in the glossed over interstices of his explanation to Munchetty, is deliberate, but actually can be deduced by its shining omission: the Government will always be in a position to make the final decision.
The facts are these. If Gove’s extremist test was applied without fear or favour: following on the Hester precedent, the PM’s statements at PMQs that his mere apology should be accepted as sufficient; and £10m taken by the Party from that source to retain power in an election; and indeed at the same time pass a law to protect a far-right, pro-Conservative newspaper from competitive market take-over (with an obvious Conservative Party political interest in the outcome); I think we can fairly say that the Conservative Party would fall under the remit of Extremism; and would be banned. If the judge and jury, ultimately were not a Conservative Government protecting the conservative Party.
I will be interested to see Conservatives apologists for the new test using more than bluster to defend its Conservative self-incrimination credentials. Buy the popcorn.
Thanks
Good interviewing
I should have mention that the source of the excerpt I used was Huff Post.
All true. Life under a Tory or Labour authoritarian regime is a horrifying thought. They are killing democracy.
Let’s look at the lowest hurdle this so-called definintion sets up. (I say so-called as the word “definition” is intended to indicate something precise, which is what this descriptive set of paragraphs is clearly not.)
First the word “advance”. This may mean as little as ‘putting forward’; the Cambridge dictionary offers “to suggest an idea or theory”; Collins suggests usages in which contestation of an idea is usually implied; Oxford suggest “to bring forward for notice, consideration, or acceptance”. The usage “to advance an ideology” does not appear to exist anywhere – outside of Gove!
So the first thing to note is that the bar is set so low that it appears to be a new usage or little more than something put forward for debate, acceptance or contestation.
Next, pausing to notice that there are perfectly reasonable arguments for saying that the present government is itself guilty, as noted by your comments Richard, of a number of actions – let alone suggestions – that “undermine… the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”….. we come to the catch-all paragraph 3. “intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2)”.
What does this actually mean? The one historical example of efforts to “intentionally create an environment” to allow for others to achieve results that “undermine… ” at least some elements of “the UK’s democratic rights” that springs to mind is the Conservative Governments’ policy of “creating a hostile environment” for ‘illegal immigrants’ (a fragile and constantly manipulated category). Perhaps familiarioty with their own lexicon inspired the drafters?
However, in real terms this is would appear to be an attempt to provide a paragraph so vague as to give ample scope for political maneouvre and which would be almost beyond the ability for any court to pronounce upon with any degree of placing the outcome beyond further dispute. Looked at one way this is the kind of slipshod draftsmanship which must have had civil service lawyers (if they were asked) despairing of resoltuion… OR it is carefully drafted so as to intimidate proponents of political ideas by the very vagueness of its language. Neither is a good ‘look’ and both indicate a ‘policy’ which, in a well-regulated “system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”, should never have seen the light of day – let alone be promulgated, by little more than ministerial fiat, as a touchstone for ‘defining’ “extremism”. There are extremists around – and they can be and have been at times deadly. Such people do require to be combatted seriously – but this rag bag of poor vocabulary and slipshod drafting is irrelevant at best and toxic at worst.
This is a government which has earned its exit.
Gove’s intervention is disappearing down the rabbit hole.
Sky News reports their journalist Wilfred Frost who pressed Gove on accepting the Hester apology:
“Pushed by Wilfred Frost on whether the apology could be genuine if the Tory donor did not accept the alleged comments were racist and misogynistic, Mr Gove said: ‘I think that when someone says they are sorry – and I understand he’s deeply sorry for these remarks – then my natural inclination is to exercise Christian forgiveness'”.
I am perplexed. How has Gove managed to place himself as a victim here? The victim, the person entitled to offer or withhold forgiveness, is Diane Abbott; who was blocked in over thirty attempts to speak in Parliament, as the victim of the comments. I am not aware of Gove even attempting to draw attention to Abbott’s efforts to speak yesterday.
Gove’s Christian forgiveness is irrelevant. He can accept the apology, as a Conservative who presumably wishes to hang on to the money, and whitewash the association; but forgiveness is not in his gift; he doesn’t even appear to understand the idea, he thinks he can just borrow it as a matter of political opportunism. I begin to think he can’t help manipulating absolutely everything on which his oleaginous eye alights.
Well said
There is another point to be made here. Diane Abbott (whose politics, as I vaguely understand them, I do not share; but are beside the real point) attempted forty six times (?) to speak at PMQs on Hester. The Speaker didn’t notice. That is the second time in about two weeks that the Speaker has bailed out Starmer and the Labour Party of a really difficult jam (the SNP day the Speaker undermined, without redress). Dress it you how you will; the fact is there, and requires explanation. The indirect explanation emanating from the Speaker’s apologists is that time ran out. The Speaker could have intervened; he did so to wreck the SNP motion; this time he would not even have had to break established precedent or Standing Orders as he did two weeks ago.
The victim of the Hester comment was in the House of commons, willing and able to speak; and was ignored. the main beneficiary of the oversight? Clearly, it was Starmer and the Labour Party; again.
It isn’t just the Government that is wrecking our democracy; it seems it is now Parliament itself.
If the public will no longer accept Neoliberal Conservatism; Parliament is now insisting you will have Neoliberal Labourism; and like it, whatever you think you want.
This is not an extremist remark “Michael Gove should be shot for being a white idiot and not a Christian!”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/14/gove-hester-remarks-not-extremist-and-warrant-christian-forgiveness
If Hester deserves Christian forgiveness surely everyone does.
What is Christian forgiveness as compared with Muslim forgiveness?
What religion is Diane Abbott?
Gove was reading his statement far too quickly. He did not want people to understand what he was meaning.
Well, nay acutely observed. The urbanely complacent Gove in his Parliamentary statement, for once was obviously nervous. He was startlingly faced with telling criticism from all sides, notably sharp from his own benches (and even managed fulsomely to patronise George Galloway’s sharply observed intervention); but unflaggingly sustained his excessively ingratiating, obsequious and sycophantic manner throughout; finally disappearing in an overflowing saponaceous froth of his own making.
Aggressive politeness is Gove’s style
So Gove has given his new, clear and precise, definition. Not a legal definition of course. But one that will be used to foster unity by allowing the government to shun those whose views are rejected. In an opaque and extrajudicial way that is almost importable to challenge.
And then he is a unable to say whether or not a short list of bodies (largely Muslim civil society bodies) meet the definition. But they are warned that their behaviour is under review. So no chilling effect there then.
If I were Gove I’d be very careful to accuse any group of even potential extremism without very clear and obvious evidence. It would be a shame for another minister to be sued for libel for making wild accusations.
Indeed
But he won’t say it
He will just say he is monitoring them
Intimidation and harassment is so much fun for these cowards
“undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy”
That inevitably includes Plaid Cymru, SNP, Scottish Greens and Sinn Fein….
I shall wait for arrests with interest
Garbage In, Gove Out
Sorry to fuss over the wording of Gove’s diktat (as also above) but it does matter – both what it says – and what it carefully avoids.
The accompanying document sort of covers the SNP/Plaid/Republican issue – but what is striking is the way the Gove/governent wording strikingly avoids any use of the term “representative democracy” an almost hallowed term usually prized by Tories, preferring “liberal democracy”.
Had they prated about the former, they would be themselves bang to rights as having undermined it – e.g. today’s report on the fiddle of using registered electors instead of population as the basis for constituency boundaries AND the fiddle over photo ID, a companion voter suppresion tactic, which also expands the bent basis for constituencies AND the fiddle of extending voting rights to people no longer resident in the country, who herefore break the once sacred link between the population and the MPs who are supposed to represent their constituents.
How fitting that a despicably unliberal government, which cleaves to neo-liberal economics, now apparently treasures “liberal” democracy – but dare not mention its representative nature.
Just been on weownit for Thursday lunch. I asked if we are all Gove’s extremists. Nobody replied!
Martin Luther King Jr was called an extremist (and worse). There is a robust response in his letter from Birmingham Jail – written while he was detained for defying a court order prohibiting a peaceful protest, in response to a letter from eight white clergymen that criticised the precipitate and inflammatory actions of an extremist “outsider”.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail with the full text at https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
“the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”
Thank you
I see that at the end of the government press release on the new definition of extremism, Ian Acheson (Senior Advisor to the Counter Extremism Project) states, “Hateful anti-British ideas that undermine our democracy creating intimidation and fear need ideologues to drive them. It is intolerable that the state underwrites people and organisations poisoning community life in one of the most successful multi-ethnic countries in the world.”
I agree, in my view it couldn’t describe what the current government does much better.
Apparently Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to catch the Speaker’s eye so she could speak. The Starmer hack Lindsay Hoyle ignored her. What a den of vultures the House of Commons has become!
The BBC attempts an explanation here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68564637
“The reason is largely to do with the rules that govern the House of Commons. Prime Minister’s Questions take place every Wednesday, when Parliament is sitting, at midday.
MPs can apply in advance of the session to ask a question. However, because there is rarely time to fit in everyone, a computer programme [sic] decides at random which MPs will get their chance. Those picked in the ballot will be prioritised.
“But the Speaker has something else to think about. He needs to make sure that the MPs he picks alternate between being from the governing party (the Conservatives) and being from the opposition (everyone else). On Wednesday, only four of the MPs randomly selected were from the Conservatives – that meant that Sir Lindsay had to select other Tories to ensure the session was balanced.
“‘His hands were tied,’ veteran Conservative MP David Davis said, arguing that the Speaker could not pick an extra opposition MP to speak given how many had been drawn in the ballot.”
The obvious question to ask is why the computer can’t also ensure that the list of members picked is made up of equal numbers of Government and opposition MPs? I’m pretty sure a 5-year old could write the code for something so simple.
John Bercow let sessions over-run to ensure all questions were addressed.
Hoyle could have done that.
He did not.
That is why he was wrong.
And did any other MP offer her their place when they were chosen by the Speaker? Regardless of rules and protocols, other MPs should have deferred to their right honourable friend Diane Abbott to take the floor.
They cannot do that
It would certainly have been possible for one of the the selected speakers to have said “Mr Speaker, I see the Right Honourable member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington is present in the chamber. It is essential that we hear her views on this matter.” before sitting down.
They could have done
But the Speaker could have ignored them
[…] Gove is following Goebbels’ advice Funding the Future […]
Dear Richard,
What gets me in all of this is the constant reference to “British values”, as though toleration, the rule of law, democracy, free speech and so on are peculiarly “British”.
They are not; indeed, I haven’t the faintest idea what “British values” are, given that the values I list are shared by many countries around the world.
I am getting rather weary, as a fully paid up Brit, of this appeal to so-called British exceptionalism.
Best,
Lawrence
I agree
I rather hope my values are not British since they seem to be racist, homophobic, misogynistic imperialism.