You're Not Paranoid If...

...they're really out to get you

Michael Gove upset a lot of people this week. On Wednesday, the Communities Minister announced the government’s new definition of “extremism”:

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 of others; or

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).

The preamble to the definition cites the current Israel v. Hamas conflict, and the correspondent rise in antisemitic and anti-Islamic UK hate crimes, as its immediate cause. Supposedly, it will help the government to respond appropriately to both Islamist and Far Right groups. The definition isn’t statutory, meaning it won’t affect any current criminal law. Rather, “it applies to the operations of government itself”—that is, it will determine how the government interacts with various groups and who ends up on its blacklist. 

The most vocal opposition has come from the Left regarding possible implications for Muslims. Since Gove’s announcement yesterday, I have counted 9 separate Guardian headlines on the subject. The concern is by now a classic one: that Gove has supposedly opened the doors to blurring the UK’s carefully maintained distinction between “Islam” and “Islamism”. 

There has also been opposition on the Right. Most notably, three former Home Secretaries—Priti Patel, Sajid Javid, and Amber Rudd—were among twelve signatories of a letter warning the government against using its new definition for “short-term tactical advantage” in the run up to a general election. Security Minister Tom Tugenhadt echoed their concerns. 

What “short-term tactical advantage” do these critics have in mind? Certainly, they’re not concerned about the Tories rounding up their political opponents and having them locked up (if only because the courts are so backlogged and the prisons so overcrowded that the odds of them being behind bars by November are rather slim). No, the supposed “short-term tactical advantage” is that, by adopting this new definition, the Tories will be seen to “talk tough” on extremism, and so win votes from people concerned about rising hate crime. Yet these right wing critics are, I’m sure, all painfully aware that, despite having all the levers of legal and policing power at their disposal, the Tories have not actually done anything to significantly clamp down on the widespread antisemitism of the endless pro-Hamas marches which are still regularly clogging up central London and making it a “no-go zone for Jews every weekend”.

The Left’s concerns here are profoundly performative. They are sounding the alarm on supposed threats to Muslims—yet the fact is that the government has taken no significant steps to counter the rising Islamist strain in British public life in recent months (or for years, for that matter). Fear of some anti-Islamic conspiracy within the Tory party is pure fantasy for those who like to imagine themselves as perennially persecuted.  The Conservatives have had the levers of power at their disposal since October 7 and, aside from piecemeal prosecutions for isolated antisemitic incidents, have refused to pull them. As is continually pointed out, this is the story of the past 14 years of Tory rule: a seeming inability to realise that governments actually have the power to do things.

The Right’s criticisms, meanwhile, are toothless. They are right to warn against redefining extremism for short-term gain, and to raise the concern of how such redefinitions may be exploited in the future. But they refuse to go further and point out how the government is already in hock to extremists. Pointing this out is what led Lee Anderson to lose the Tory whip and defect to Reform, refusing to apologise after saying that Sadiq Khan had “given our capital city away to his mates [i.e. Islamists]”. Anderson’s not always my cup of tea, but I find it hard to disagree with him here (although I think he’s mistaken about why Khan capitulates to the Islamists—it’s not because he’s a Muslim, it’s because he’s Woke).

Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of threat legislation, seems one of the few voices who has taken issue with the definition at the level of principle:

The definition focuses on ideas, on ideology, not action. So it’s a move from the previous definition … Moving the focus from action to ideology or ideas is an important one because I think people will be entitled to say: ‘What business is it of the government what people think, unless they do something with that?’...

“There’s no appeal body and where you have this lack of safeguards, it’s going to be really important to make sure that this labelling does not bleed into other areas.

If the government says that someone is an extremist, and is essentially saying ‘You are unacceptable’, then what would stop a local authority, another public body or even a private body from deciding they will adopt it as well?

I should note that both Miriam Cates and Robert Jenrick spoke up admirably in similar terms in parliament on Thursday, but I fear that their concerns won’t hit the headlines, and that those on the Right with the highest profile are not advancing the arguments that need to be made.

The most interesting response to Gove’s announcement, for my money, has been that of Keir Starmer, our likely future Prime Minister. Despite being Leader of the Opposition, Starmer did not seem especially opposed to Gove’s new definition when questioned. Rather than expressing principial free speech concerns like Jonathan Hall, or even electioneering concerns like Patel et al, Starmer seemed warm toward the government’s proposal, saying their new definition must be “truly cross-party”.

This, really, is where the alarm should sound—especially for Christians.