New definition of extremism (2024)

[spot]

I note the publication of a "New definition of extremism" by the UK government, under the direction of Michael Gove.

Here, for the record, is the content, which with extended commentary can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... emism-2024

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).

It then immediately weasels - within the definition area itself - with "The types of behaviour below are indicative of the kind of promotion or advancement which may be relevant to the definition, and are an important guide to its application. The further context below is also an essential part of the definition."

That prevents the actual definition from being independently interpreted, other than being in reference to what Michael Gove considers context instead of what I consider context - my context being extremism, of course, rather than the tunnel vision of Michael Gove.

The definition runs to 59 words. The proffered context which "is also an essential part of the definition" runs a further 989 words excluding the copious footnotes.

I would highlight the obvious, since he also defines Parliamentary democracy: "The UK is a parliamentary democracy which consists of a constitutional monarch as Head of State, who exercises a number of constitutional and ceremonial duties; Parliament, which is the supreme legislative authority with the ability to make or unmake any law; government, which is drawn from and accountable to Parliament; and a judiciary which is independent from government and Parliament." - it is considered extremist to press for republican government and the abolition of the monarchy. I don't see how that can avoid being central to his statement, though no doubt the gentleman will back-pedal and say no no no.

I also note the gentleman has failed to exclude Christians from being defined as extremists and having their government subsidies and funding removed. I look forward to providing instances of Christian extremism within this definition repeatedly as this thread grows.

What do you mean you've never seen Christians behave as described? Are we not enjoined to seek and advance the End of Days, to establish the New Jerusalem? What sort of defective bible study groups have you been attending. The only salvation is through Jesus, remember? The unbaptised are all damned, destined for the eternal fires of hell, and if that's not hate speech I don't know what is. There's nothing on earth so intolerant as a bona-fide ideological Christian - go and ask the Irish. (other persecuted sectarian victims are also available)

[spot]

So, here's how it's done, see. We need a starting point. Let's find a thing we can match to modern test conditions. Here's what you do innit. You say "If this thing was about Jews you'd call it racist, wouldn't you? And it's a level playing field because otherwise your own test would be inherently racist, duh. So is this racist according to the only acceptable method of testing? or not? Because once we can decide what's racist we can drag racism into this extremist filter Mr Gove is trying to mould into something he can selectively use.

[spot]

I shall quote from George Galloway's contribution to yesterday's debate on the new extremism measures. You will recall he was re-elected to the House on February 29th, a day which will now be forever known as Galloway Day.

I remind the Secretary of State that a former Speaker of this House was wearing a “Hang Nelson Mandela” T-shirt when my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I were seeking the overthrow of apartheid and being called divisive. This building is designed to show that politics is full of division, and sometimes those reviled as extremists turn out to have been right all along.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... onsChamber

And "sometimes those reviled as extremists turn out to have been right all along" is the key to this folly. I have absolutely no doubt that had Thatcher the use of today's extremist protocol she would have employed it against those protesting against Apartheid during the 80s. And she would have been morally wrong to do so. The extremists were at the time led by her, and governing the country.

[Bryn Mawr]

It has been suggested that, by the government’s new definition of extremism, the government is indeed an extremist organisation as the laws they have passed restricting our right to protest, by definition negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.