Unlock Editor's Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf has chosen her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Michael Gove defends the UK government's new definition of extremism from a wave of criticism, saying it does not seek to ban organizations but instead allows public bodies to „choose their friends wisely“ claimed to be a thing.
The region's general secretary, who drew up the guidelines against a backdrop of weekly pro-Palestinian protests and rising tensions over the Israeli-Hamas war, said he already had several „groups of concern“ in mind.
However, it added that no decision to add such groups to the list will be taken unless due diligence is done.
“This is not about banning organizations.” Gove told the BBC today program. „That's important if the government is going to counter hate. . . . We can choose our friends wisely.“
The guidelines announced Thursday do not affect criminal law, but are aimed at deterring government funding or involvement in groups that spread extremist ideology or hatred in communities. Those deemed „extremists“ are denied government grants, ministerial meetings, access to senior civil servants, and public appointments.
Extremism is defined as “the promotion or promotion of an ideology based on violence, hatred, or intolerance that is aimed at denying or destroying the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”
However, the guidelines have been embroiled in a political firestorm.
Three former Conservative home secretaries this week warned of the dangers of politicizing the debate around extremism, and two of the most senior Church of England clergy also expressed serious concerns about the new definition.
The ruling Conservative Party has also been criticized for accepting £10 million from a donor whose views he admitted were racist.
Asked whether the definition could lead to an investigation into racist and threatening comments made by Tory donor Frank Hester, Mr Gove said: That naturally led to an apology. ”
Miriam Cates, co-chair of the New Conservative Party group of right-wing MPs, criticized Mr Gove's proposals, saying: „In a democratic society where there is a plurality of beliefs and opinions, there is no need for strong legal limits on terms such as 'extremism'. It is certainly impossible to establish a definition.“ or “British values”.
„One man's extremist is another man's brave champion of an unpopular cause,“ she argued in an op-ed for the Review, including attempts to legalize everything from abortion to childbirth; He added that some people's views on gender fluidity are „extreme“.
Baroness Saida Warsi, a member of the Conservative Party, accused the government of fomenting „dangerous and divisive politics“.
„Michael Gove has no intention of dividing us by ideologically pursuing policies that victims of terrorism, the former Home Secretary and even the Archbishop of Canterbury have rejected and criticized,“ she told X. wrote.
Sir David Anderson KC, who served as an independent reviewer of Britain's terrorism bill, told the BBC that the definition was „very broad“ and risked capturing both sides of the transgender rights debate.
He also questioned why the bill was not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, given that it was not just a „government issue“ and could affect „the liberties and reputations of so many people.“ presented.
Asked whether the definition was likely to capture groups that use terms such as the pro-Palestinian slogan „from river to sea“, Mr Gove said the phrase alone was not. „What we're looking at is ideology, patterns of behavior, and specific sets of beliefs and behaviors,“ he says.