Ever since he and I shared a platform at a Labour convention Fringe Meeting in 2003 and collectively rounded on Claire Short for the tone and method of her opposition to the Iraq warfare, I’ve had a sneaking regard for Michael Gove.
Although I’ve disagreed with 90 per cent of what he’s performed, I feel by way of coverage supply he’s essentially the most substantial Cabinet determine of the final 14 years.
But his new definition of extremism is a canine’s breakfast which dangers making the battle towards extremism harder.
It’s merely an inexpensive pre-election stunt to attempt to put some bones on Rishi Sunak’s determined speech about extremism 2 weeks in the past.
‘he’s essentially the most substantial Cabinet determine of the final 14 years,’ writes Bill Rammell
PA
I’m not some lily-livered Liberal, however a Minister within the final Labour Government who labored as a Higher Education and Foreign Office Minister to strengthen the prevention technique to sort out the ideological causes of terrorism and thwart radicalisation, and who delivered the first-ever steering for universities on tackling violent extremism.
I consider informal extremism creates the setting from which violent extremism grows. And it must be significantly tackled. But this definition of extremism makes that activity tougher.
Look rigorously at what Gove has proposed. It is just not a authorized definition or a transfer to proscribe genuinely extremist organisations. It is solely steering to Ministers on who they meet and fund.
And as a result of it doesn’t financial institution on advocacy of violent extremism, it muddies the waters and units again the reason for preventing extremism. In Government, I learnt that any definition that doesn’t financial institution on violent extremism as the important thing benchmark of what’s and isn’t acceptable is just not sustainable.
MORE AGENDA-SETTING OPINION
And this extremism definition is so flawed that it’s going to create recruits for extremists.
It is just not appealable or topic to administrative evaluate – a key tenet of our democracy. Any group hit by it may solely overturn it by means of vastly costly judicial evaluate. Most individuals will see that as unreasonable.
And there are actual dangers of unintended penalties. Miriam Cates, a Tory MP I usually profoundly disagree with, argues that shifting the definition of extremism away from acts of violence may result in the criminalisation of authentic views. I feel she is correct.
This extremism definition additionally demonstrates how the Tory Party is so confused about free speech. They rail towards cancel tradition, but that’s what they instinctively search to do with anybody they disagree with.
As Higher Education Minister I supported the best of the Oxford Union to ask Nick Griffin of the BNP. Because extremism, except it’s violent extremism, wants difficult and exposing by means of free debate.
Frank Hester allegedly stated Diane Abbott ‘must be shot’PAAnd the definition and the way it’ll function will ban Ministers from assembly extremist teams, that fall wanting advocating violent extremism. Yet I need such conferences to take place. They assist to reveal and problem extremist teams, and bluntly control “what the bastards are up to.”
And from a celebration whose main donor referred to as for Britain’s first black girl MP “to be shot” and stated she “made him want to hate all black women” – forgive me if I feel the Tories are missing credibility on tackling extremism.
This definition is just not a complete try and sort out extremism. There has been no try and make it cross-party, which it must be to be severe and have an opportunity of success. And it’s not in any approach complete – the “Countering hateful extremism Strategy” is 9 years old, and the Government is just not proposing to update it.
There is a worrying drift in the direction of extremism in an excessive amount of of society. This new Government definition is not going to assist sort out that. In reality it makes the job tougher.
