It wasn't just Lib Dems who opposed Theresa May's counter-extremism plans
|
Version 0 of 1. Don’t make the mistake of thinking it was only the Liberal Democrats who were opposed to Theresa May’s counter-extremism proposals when she first floated them before the general election. Related: David Cameron to unveil new limits on extremists' activities in Queen's speech When the home secretary showcased them in her party conference speech in October Dominic Raab, then a backbench MP and now a justice minister, described them as “eroding basic principles of freedom that won’t make us safer”. He even suggested that her extremism disruption orders could be abused to slap down “monarchists, communists and even Christians objecting to gay marriage”’. He was not alone. Senior Tories such as Lord Lamont and John Selwyn Gummer, or Lord Deben as he is now known, voiced serious free speech concerns over her plans for ministers to order universities to ban extremist speakers from campuses. But opposition to her plans also ran right across government. The Financial Times reported that no fewer than seven Conservative cabinet ministers had by March raised objections to some of the proposals which are now to be fast-tracked in the Queen’s speech. Some of those ministers, such as Greg Clark, Nicky Morgan, Theresa Villiers and Sajid Javid are still in the cabinet. Indeed their previous opposition may account for some notable omissions from the list of proposed measures published by Downing Street on Wednesday. Missing, for example, is the still-promised plan to ban extremist speakers from campuses and an inquiry into the application of sharia law in Britain. The key change that May is advocating is to take action against “extremists who spread hate but do not break existing laws”. That means going beyond existing policy that targets violent extremists of all stripes to taking action against non-violent extremists, and the “full spectrum of extremism” – not just the “hard end” that has been the target of counter-terrorism policy up to now. The difference is spelled out in the detail of the policy, where it says that it is intended to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake “harmful activities” for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”. This is an area fraught with difficulties that could see non-violent political activists in all sorts of areas deemed to be “anti-democratic”. The Conservatives already say that the policy would catch neo-Nazis, raising questions about whether the EDL or the BNP would be banned under the measure. But the official definition of non-violent extremism is already wide-ranging and, as Big Brother Watch has pointed out, the national extremism database already includes the names of people who have done little more than organise meetings on environmental issues. So what would the measures that are being proposed mean in practice? |