Connect with us

Published

on

A cabinet minister has failed to name which groups or individuals would fall under the upcoming revised definition of extremist groups.

Health Secretary Victoria Atkins was interviewed on Sky News’ Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips after her frontbench colleague Michael Gove urged pro-Palestinian protesters to question whether extremist groups are behind some demonstrations.

She said the housing secretary was “setting out his ideas as to what we should do to tackle some of these very extreme views that we are sadly seeing expressed around our streets”.

Politics Live: Scrapping non-dom status ‘an utter humiliation’ for Tories, says Reeves

Tens of thousands of people took part in a protest against Israel’s war in Gaza organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) in London on Saturday – the fifth march in the capital this year. Five were arrested and a counter-demonstrator de-arrested.

The upcoming revised definition of extremist groups would receive “more specificity” and enable the government and other public bodies to ban funding and engagement with Islamist and far-right groups, Mr Gove told the Sunday Telegraph.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Charlotte Church joins pro-Palestine march

Asked by Trevor Phillips about whether this meant there would be additions to the list this week, Ms Atkins said Mr Gove’s comments were a continuation of the warnings about extremism that Rishi Sunak gave in his Downing Street address last week, “namely that there are some people, sadly, who hold views that are contrary to the values that we hold as a country”.

“We should not allow those views to percolate through society or indeed allow them to try to change the way we as a society conduct our democracy, the way we allow parliament to set its own rules and conventions,” she said.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Balfour painting slashed in Gaza protest

Ms Atkins did not name which groups or individuals might fall under the new definition, but pointed to pro-Palestine activists spray-painting and slashing a portrait of Lord Balfour at the University of Cambridge’s Trinity College on Friday, adding “this is not the way we conduct democracy and express our views in this country”.

? Listen above then tap here to follow Electoral Dysfunction wherever you get your podcasts ?

Jewish residents ‘worried about walking in London’ during demonstrations

Pressed on whether the government was planning to ban groups because of the views they hold, Ms Atkins said there was a “longstanding convention” in the UK of “proscription for those groups that meet the very strict criteria under the legislation,” which she described as “the most extreme end”.

But she said “at the other end of the scale” there was concern that in large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations “there can be a minority of people who hold and extol views that make the rest of us feel not just deeply uncomfortable, but if you are a Jewish resident of London, some have said they feel worried about walking in London when these demonstrations happen, and that’s not right”.

Read more:
Hate preachers to be blocked from entering the UK
Ministers urge government to increase defence spending in highly unusual intervention

Risk for government is they seek to draw dividing line where none exists

By Matthew Thompson, Sky correspondent

The government’s plans to create, in Rishi Sunak’s words from outside Downing Street, a “robust framework” for tackling extremism have had a little more flesh added to the bones this weekend.

This coming week, Michael Gove is set to publish a new definition of extremism, which looks like it will link extremism to some attempt to undermine British democracy or democratic values.

The move has prompted howls of outrage from various quarters: civil liberties groups concerned it will suppress freedom of speech, and religious groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain, who fear they will fall foul of a definition they have branded “offensive, ludicrous and dangerous”.

However, one quarter from which there is barely a squeak of dissent is the Labour Party.

Some observers have noted the Tories’ extremism drive is a way to seek a dividing line with Labour. Potentially even to make relations with Labour’s large Muslim vote even more fractious.

But what is clear from Labour’s various pronouncements over the last week or so is that their settled position is broadly behind the extremism crackdown.

Last week, Labour leader Keir Starmer agreed with Rishi Sunak’s Downing Street speech.

On Sunday morning, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves told Sky News they would wait to see the detail of Mr Gove’s policy, but that it was “right that we look again at the definition [of extremism]”.

Yes, there may be noises off from those on the left of the Labour Party. But the risk for the government is that they seek to draw a dividing line where none exists.

For Labour, the risk is that, like in debates over last week’s budget, they again open themselves to the charge of being little more than Conservatives in a red rosette.

New definition is not attempt to draw dividing line with Labour

The health secretary insisted the new definition was not a political attempt to draw a dividing line with Labour.

She said: “It is precisely because we have seen, sadly, in the last six months or so, this rise in extremist ideas which is making people – other citizens in our country – feel deeply uncomfortable.

“So, it is that balancing act between… freedom of speech, but also the right of citizens to go about their daily lives.”

‘Genuine debate to be had’ about freedom of expression

Justice minister Mike Freer said there is “genuine debate to be had about what is legitimate freedom of expression”.

After speaking at an event in north London calling for the return of the Israeli hostages still held by Hamas, he told Sky News the government needs to “redraw that line so people know what is legitimate and what is extremism”.

Continue Reading

Politics

US judge asks for clarification on Do Kwon’s foreign charges

Published

on

By

US judge asks for clarification on Do Kwon’s foreign charges

With Do Kwon scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday after pleading guilty to two felony counts, a US federal judge is asking prosecutors and defense attorneys about the Terraform Labs co-founder’s legal troubles in his native country, South Korea, and Montenegro.

In a Monday filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Paul Engelmayer asked Kwon’s lawyers and attorneys representing the US government about the charges and “maximum and minimum sentences” the Terraform co-founder could face in South Korea, where he is expected to be extradited after potentially serving prison time in the United States.

Kwon pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud in August and is scheduled to be sentenced by Engelmayer on Thursday.

Law, South Korea, Court, Crimes, Terra, Do Kwon
Source: Courtlistener

In addition to the judge’s questions on Kwon potentially serving time in South Korea, he asked whether there was agreement that “none of Mr. Kwon’s time in custody in Montenegro” — where he served a four-month sentence for using falsified travel documents and fought extradition to the US for more than a year — would be credited to any potential US sentence.

Judge Engelmayer’s questions signaled concerns that, should the US grant extradition to South Korea to serve “the back half of his sentence,” the country’s authorities could release him early. 

Kwon was one of the most prominent figures in the crypto and blockchain industry in 2022 before the collapse of the Terra ecosystem, which many experts agree contributed to a market crash that resulted in several companies declaring bankruptcy and significant losses to investors.

Defense attorneys requested that Kwon serve no more than five years in the US, while prosecutors are pushing for at least 12 years.

Related: There’s more to crypto crime than meets the eye: What you need to know

The sentencing recommendation from the US government said that Kwon had “caused losses that eclipsed those caused” by former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, former Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky and OneCoin’s Karl Sebastian Greenwood combined. All three men are serving multi-year sentences in federal prison.

Will Do Kwon serve time in South Korea?

The Terraform co-founder’s lawyers said that even if Engelmayer were to sentence Kwon to time served, he would “immediately reenter pretrial detention pending his criminal charges in South Korea,” and potentially face up to 40 years in the country, where he holds citizenship. 

Thursday’s sentencing hearing could mark the beginning of the end of Kwon’s chapter in the 2022 collapse of Terraform. His whereabouts amid the crypto market downturn were not publicly known until he was arrested in Montenegro and held in custody to await extradition to the US, where he was indicted in March 2023 for his role at Terraform.