Connect with us

Published

on

The government has unveiled its new definition of extremism as part of a drive to clamp down on Islamist and far-right extremism.

Some have warned the change could have a “chilling effect” on free speech, while others have said it doesn’t go far enough.

How has the definition changed, why has the government done it, and why is it under scrutiny? Here’s everything you need to know.

What is the new definition of extremism?

The definition describes extremism as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance” that aims to “negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” or “undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”.

It also includes those who “intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve” either of those aims.

What was the old definition?

More on Michael Gove

The 2011 definition described extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and belief” as well as “calls for the death of members of our armed forces”.

Why has the government changed it?

Communities Secretary Michael Gove told Sky News the new definition is seeking “specifically to respond to the increase in the amount of antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred that we’ve seen on our streets and social media and elsewhere” since the Israel-Hamas war began.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Not a restraint on free speech’

But he denied suggestions the change was intended to prevent people demonstrating, saying it was “not a restraint on free speech” and only applies to engagement with government.

Essentially, the government’s new definition means organisations that perhaps wouldn’t have fallen under the “extremism category” before will now do so, prohibiting them from being eligible for government support and funding.

“We know that there’s been cases in the past where individual extremist organisations have sought to take advantage of government patronage, money and influence in order to advance their agenda,” Mr Gove said.

“So today’s definition applies only to government and makes it clear that we will keep these organisations at arm’s length so they can’t benefit from access to government and its funds.”

He added the new definition isn’t statutory and is “about making sure that government uses its powers and its money in a wise way”.

Who specifically could be affected?

The government is not expected to publish a list of organisations covered by the new definition today, but have said they will do so in the coming weeks. Members of those groups will then be banned from meeting with ministers or other elected officials and will be unable to receive public money so they do not get a platform that could “legitimise” them through their association with the government.

However, in the House of Commons, Mr Gove has said certain groups will now be assessed against the new definition of extremism, and went on to list some organisations that will be looked at.

These include British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative. He also names the Muslim Association of Britain, as a British association of the Muslim Brotherhood, Cage and Mend.

Mr Gove insisted groups would only be deemed extremist after “a patient assessment of the evidence” and if they showed “a consistent pattern of behaviour”.

The government says it’s trying to identify all forms of extremism, including far-right groups. But many Muslims fear this will disproportionately affect them.

Why is the change being criticised?

While the new definition is being welcomed by some today, others have warned it could have a “chilling effect on free speech”.

Speaking during Prime Minister’s Questions this week, Miriam Cates, the co-leader of the influential New Conservatives group, said broadening the definition of extremism could have “a chilling effect on free speech”.

“In separating the definition of extremism from actual violence and harm, we may criminalise people with a wide range of legitimate views and have a chilling effect on free speech”.

Angela Rayner responded to Mr Gove’s statement in the House of Commons on behalf of the Labour Party and said: “Given this new definition, the public will rightly be alarmed at the idea that government ministers could already have met with extremist groups.

“Can the secretary of state shed some light on this? Renewed vigilance and diligence, these are welcome, particularly in the current climate, but if its own department now needs to cut ties with extremist groups, it begs the question why they were working with them in the first place.”

She also urged Mr Gove to explain which groups the change will affect and “where the government has chosen to draw the line”.

In response, Mr Gove promised that if an organisation is listed as extremist, the “evidence which leads us to that conclusion and the judgement that we have made will be there for everyone to see”.

Ms Rayner also went on to ask how a new centre of excellence on counter-terrorism will work, and sought confirmation the government will appoint a new adviser on Islamophobia.

Mr Gove replied that the centre of excellence will be staffed by civil servants, with the assistance of academics and academic bodies.

It will also work with the Home Office to ensure the work is “rigorous”.

Conservative peer Baroness Warsi also criticised the move, branding it a “divide and rule approach” intended to “breed division and encourage mistrust”.

And on Wednesday, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, warned the proposals risk “disproportionately targeting Muslim communities”.

A coalition of Muslim organisations echoed the archbishop’s sentiments, adding the move will “vilify the wrong people” and “risk more division”.

Signatories include groups which fear they may fall under the new definition, which has been announced as part of the government’s new counter-extremism strategy.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Extremism redefinition will ‘vilify us’

CAGE International, Friends of Al-Aqsa (FOA), Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), and 5Pillars say “the proposed definition signals an attack on civil liberties by attacking law-abiding individuals and groups that oppose government policy by labelling them as ‘extremist'”.

A spokesperson for the coalition added: “This new extremism definition is a solution looking for a problem.

“It attacks one of the cherished cornerstones of our pluralistic democracy – that of free speech.

“Anyone, regardless of faith or political colour should be free to criticise the government of the day without being labelled as ‘extremist'”.

‘Doesn’t go far enough’

While some believe the change will have an adverse effect, others have suggested it might not have any real effect at all.

“If you really want to take action against hateful extremism, you need more than a definition for government administration, you need an action plan, you need a strategy,” Darren Jones, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, has told Sky News.

He called for an update to the countering hateful extremism strategy, which he said is nine years out of date.

The government strategy introduced in 2015 was aimed at “countering all forms of extremism” and improving “our understanding of the causes and impacts of extremism”.

Mr Jones said the process through which groups would be named under the new definition “needs to be clarified”.

“It does seem that the design, the process and the accountability doesn’t seem quite right,” he said.

‘It’s a tweak’

Lord Mann, the government’s independent adviser on antisemitism, has described the new extremism definition as a “tweak”.

“I think it’s probably a helpful tweak,” he told Sky News, but went on to stress the need for it in legislation.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

New definition of extremism just a ‘tweak’

He said he wanted to see the government put “maximum effort” into bringing communities together to tackle division which is “damaging the Jewish community”.

He also urged caution on the “politics of division”, warning that “if there’s division in society, the biggest loser will always be the Jewish community”.

Lord Mann was among a number of signatories who signed a statement this week calling for “as broad a consensus as possible” in facing down extremism, and a guarantee that “no political party uses the issue to seek short-term tactical advantage”.

Continue Reading

Politics

EU could fine Elon Musk’s X $1B over illicit content, disinformation

Published

on

By

EU could fine Elon Musk’s X B over illicit content, disinformation

EU could fine Elon Musk’s X B over illicit content, disinformation

European Union regulators are reportedly mulling a $1 billion fine against Elon Musk’s X, taking into account revenue from his other ventures, including Tesla and SpaceX, according to The New York Times.

EU regulators allege that X has violated the Digital Services Act and will use a section of the act to calculate a fine based on revenue that includes other companies Musk controls, according to an April 3 report by the newspaper, which cited four people with knowledge of the plan.

Under the Digital Services Act, which came into law in October 2022 to police social media companies and “prevent illegal and harmful activities online,” companies can be fined up to 6% of global revenue for violations.

A spokesman for the European Commission, the bloc’s executive branch, declined to comment on this case to The New York Times but did say it would “continue to enforce our laws fairly and without discrimination toward all companies operating in the EU.”

In a statement, X’s Global Government Affairs team said that if the reports about the EU’s plans are accurate, it “represents an unprecedented act of political censorship and an attack on free speech.”

“X has gone above and beyond to comply with the EU’s Digital Services Act, and we will use every option at our disposal to defend our business, keep our users safe, and protect freedom of speech in Europe,” X’s global government affairs team said.

European Union, Elon Musk

Source: Global Government Affairs

Along with the fine, the EU regulators could reportedly demand product changes at X, with the full scope of any penalties to be announced in the coming months. 

Still, a settlement could be reached if the social media platform agrees to changes that satisfy regulators, according to the Times. 

One of the officials who spoke to the Times also said that X is facing a second investigation alleging the platform’s approach to policing user-generated content has made it a hub of illegal hate speech and disinformation, which could result in more penalties.

X EU investigation ongoing since 2023

The EU investigation began in 2023. A preliminary ruling in July 2024 found X had violated the Digital Services Act by refusing to provide data to outside researchers, provide adequate transparency about advertisers, or verify the authenticity of users who have a verified account.

Related: Musk says he found ‘magic money computers’ printing money ‘out of thin air’

X responded to the ruling with hundreds of points of dispute, and Musk said at the time he was offered a deal, alleging that EU regulators told him if he secretly suppressed certain content, X would escape fines. 

Thierry Breton, the former EU commissioner for internal market, said in a July 12 X post in 2024 that there was no secret deal and that X’s team had asked for the “Commission to explain the process for settlement and to clarify our concerns,” and its response was in line with “established regulatory procedures.” 

Musk replied he was looking “forward to a very public battle in court so that the people of Europe can know the truth.”

European Union, Elon Musk

Source: Thierry Breton

Magazine: XRP win leaves Ripple a ‘bad actor’ with no crypto legal precedent set

Continue Reading

Politics

Coinbase Institutional files for XRP futures trading with CFTC

Published

on

By

Coinbase Institutional files for XRP futures trading with CFTC

Coinbase Institutional files for XRP futures trading with CFTC

US crypto exchange Coinbase has filed with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to launch futures contracts for Ripple’s XRP token.

“We’re excited to announce that Coinbase Derivatives has filed with the CFTC to self-certify XRP futures — bringing a regulated, capital-efficient way to gain exposure to one of the most liquid digital assets,” stated Coinbase Institutional on April 3. 

The firm added that it anticipates the contract going live on April 21.

According to the certification filing, the XRP (XRP) futures contract will be a monthly cash-settled and margined contract trading under the symbol XRL.

The contract tracks XRP’s price and is settled in US dollars. Each contract represents 10,000 XRP, currently worth about $20,000 at $2 per token.

Contracts can be traded for the current month and two months ahead, and trading will be paused as a safety measure if spot XRP prices move more than 10% in an hour. 

“The exchange has spoken with FCMs (Futures Commission Merchants) and market participants who support the decision to launch a XRP contract,” the firm stated. 

Coinbase is not the first to launch XRP futures in the United States. In March, Chicago-based crypto exchange Bitnomial announced the launch of the “first-ever CFTC-regulated XRP futures in the US.” 

XRP futures trading is available on many of the world’s leading centralized crypto exchanges, such as Binance, OKX, Bybit and BitMEX. 

Funding rates remain negative

In late March, Cointelegraph reported that XRP derivatives’ funding rates had flipped negative as investor sentiment turned bearish. 

Related: XRP funding rate flips negative — Will smart traders flip long or short?

Funding rates are periodic payments between traders in perpetual futures markets that help keep the futures price aligned with the spot price. Positive funding rates mean that long traders (buyers) pay short traders, while negative funding rates mean short traders (sellers) pay long traders. 

When funding rates go negative, it means short traders are willing to pay a premium to maintain their positions, indicating strong conviction from bearish derivatives traders. 

XRP funding rates remained negative on major derivatives exchanges as of April 4, according to CoinGlass. 

Coinbase Institutional files for XRP futures trading with CFTC

XRP OI-weighted funding rates. Source: CoinGlass

Magazine: XRP win leaves Ripple a ‘bad actor’ with no crypto legal precedent set

Continue Reading

Politics

Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao to advise Kyrgyzstan on blockchain tech

Published

on

By

Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao to advise Kyrgyzstan on blockchain tech

Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao to advise Kyrgyzstan on blockchain tech

Former Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao will begin advising the Kyrgyz Republic on blockchain and crypto-related regulation and tech after signing a memorandum of understanding with the country’s foreign investment agency.

“I officially and unofficially advise a few governments on their crypto regulatory frameworks and blockchain solutions for gov efficiency, expanding blockchain to more than trading,” the crypto entrepreneur said in an April 3 X post, adding that he finds this work “extremely meaningful.”

His comments came in response to an earlier X post from Kyrgyzstan President Sadyr Zhaparov announcing that Kyrgyzstan’s National Investment Agency (NIA) had signed a memorandum with CZ to provide technical expertise and consulting services for the Central Asian country.

The NIA is responsible for promoting foreign investments and assisting international companies in identifying business opportunities within the country.

Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao to advise Kyrgyzstan on blockchain tech

Source: Changpeng Zhao

“This cooperation marks an important step towards strengthening technological infrastructure, implementing innovative solutions, and preparing highly qualified specialists in blockchain technologies, virtual asset management, and cybersecurity,” Zhaparov said.

The Kyrgyzstan president added: “such initiatives are crucial for the sustainable growth of the economy and the security of virtual assets, ultimately generating new opportunities for businesses and society as a whole.”

Kyrgyzstan, which officially changed its name from the Republic of Kyrgyzstan to the Kyrgyz Republic in 1993, is a mountainous, land-locked country.

It is considered well-suited for crypto mining operations due to its abundant renewable energy resources, much of which is underutilized.

Over 30% of Kyrgyzstan’s total energy supply comes from hydroelectric power plants, but only 10% of the country’s potential hydropower has been developed, according to a report by the International Energy Agency.

CZ has met with several other state officials in Asia

Malaysia also recently tapped CZ for guidance on crypto-related matters, with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim meeting him personally in January.

CZ has also met with officials in the UAE and Bitcoin-stacking country Bhutan — however, it isn’t clear what those meetings entailed.

Related: Is Bitcoin’s future in circular economies or national reserves?

CZ’s latest pursuits come a little over six months after he was released from a four-month prison sentence in the US for violating several anti-money laundering laws.

Since being released, CZ has made investments in blockchain tech, artificial intelligence and biotechnology companies.

CZ also recently donated 1,000 BNB (BNB) — worth almost $600,000 — to support earthquake relief efforts in Thailand and Myanmar after the natural disaster in late April.

Magazine: Financial nihilism in crypto is over — It’s time to dream big again

Continue Reading

Trending