Politics

What does Theresa May's "extremism crackdown" involve?

The Home Secretary has proposed tough new laws to tackle ideologies that undermine "British values"

May 13, 2015
A sketch of of Brusthom Ziamani, who was jailed for 22 years in March for hatching a plot to behead a British soldier inspired by the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. © Elizabeth Cook/PA Wire/Press Association Images
A sketch of of Brusthom Ziamani, who was jailed for 22 years in March for hatching a plot to behead a British soldier inspired by the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. © Elizabeth Cook/PA Wire/Press Association Images

What is being proposed?

Last year, Home Secretary Theresa May set out hardline proposals to prevent the spread of extremist ideas. Today, the Prime Minister will announce that the appropriate legislation will appear in his government's first Queen's Speech on 27th May. Following a speech in March in which May proposed an “emphatic rejection of the misconception that in... Britain, 'anything goes,'” two specific new pledges on extremism made it into the Tories' election manifesto. First, that a Conservative government would outlaw hate groups using new “Banning Orders,” and second that it would create new “Extremism Disruption Orders” to restrict individual extremists. The manifesto also promises new counter-extremism powers over broadcasters, schools and universities, and new requirements for employers to identify extremists. David Cameron will say today that "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.'"

What is new about this?

May has recently shifted her strategy from just tackling “terrorism”—violent political action—to also tackling “extremism”—the ideology which drives terrorists. A 2013 report by the counter-extremism task force warned that; “it is often too easy... to spread extremist views which can lead people into terrorism, while at the same time being careful not to contravene existing laws on incitement to violence or glorifying terrorism.” These new laws would seek to address this, allowing the government to restrict the actions of extremists who intend to incite racial or religious hatred, threaten democracy, or pose a threat to the public through a range of criminal acts, the BBC reports. That is a much lower threshold than the existing laws on terrorism, which usually require a person or group to be involved in committing, planning, inciting or promoting actual violent terrorist acts before special powers are used against them. May says that a key part of defining what actions or words contravene the new laws will be whether they undermine "British values."

How will it work?

The detail of the legislation is yet to be drafted, and at this point the vagueness of the term “British values” makes it difficult to establish exactly what kind of opinions someone would have to voice to fall foul of this legislation. In March, May said the new legislation would be accompanied by “a positive campaign to promote British values and show clearly the opportunities they bring,” which will presumably clear this up a bit. The Coalition's definition of extremism said that British values included "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.” Disruption Orders could be brought by police against extremist individuals to prevent them from carrying out “harmful activities”—a broad phrase which could encompass a range of actions including using the internet or posting on social media. The Conservative manifesto promises to outlaw groups which “foment hate,” and May said earlier this year that a dossier of such groups was being compiled by Whitehall officials.

Is this the right approach?

Before the election, May said that new powers are to be used in concert with a wider counter-extremism strategy, seeking to draw individuals in danger of being radicalised back into the fold with one hand, even as it strikes down those who corrupt them with the other. But there are concerns that criminalising such a wide variety of speech and activity restricts British citizens' human rights, and even risks further alienating individuals most at risk of radicalisation. Jonathan Russell, from the counter-extremism think tank Quilliam, says that he would urge the government not to see human rights as an “obstacle” in tackling extremists, but to see them as part of our “armoury:” the preservation of basic freedoms, he says, is part of what sets us apart from the Islamists May is seeking to tackle. “We need a moral highground through which we can [address] people's grievances,” he said.