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

SEC and Gemini ask to pause lawsuit to explore ‘potential resolution’

Published

on

By

SEC and Gemini ask to pause lawsuit to explore ‘potential resolution’

SEC and Gemini ask to pause lawsuit to explore ‘potential resolution’

The US Securities and Exchange Commission and crypto exchange Gemini have asked to pause the regulator’s suit over the exchange’s Gemini Earn program, saying they want to discuss a potential resolution. 

In an April 1 letter to New York federal court judge Edgardo Ramos, lawyers representing the SEC and Genesis requested a 60-day hold on the case and that all deadlines be pulled “to allow the parties to explore a potential resolution.” 

“In this case, the parties submit that it is in each of their interests to stay this matter while they consider a potential resolution and agree that no party or non-party would be prejudiced by a stay,” the letter states.

The lawyers added that a stay was in the court’s interest as “a resolution would conserve judicial resources” and proposed that a joint status report be submitted within 60 days after the entry of the stay.

The SEC sued Gemini and crypto lending firm Genesis Global Capital in January 2023, alleging they offered unregistered securities through the Gemini Earn program.

In March 2024, Genesis agreed to pay $21 million to settle charges related to the lending program, but the enforcement case against Gemini remains outstanding.

SEC and Gemini ask to pause lawsuit to explore ‘potential resolution’

Letter from SEC and Genesis Global requesting extension of stay. Source: CourtListener

The letter did not specify what a possible resolution would entail, but the SEC has dropped several lawsuits it launched against crypto companies under the Biden administration, including against Coinbase, Ripple and Kraken.

Related: Will new US SEC rules bring crypto companies onshore?

In February, Gemini said the SEC closed a separate investigation into the firm as the regulator winds back its crypto enforcement under President Donald Trump. 

“The SEC cost us tens of millions of dollars in legal bills alone and hundreds of millions in lost productivity, creativity, and innovation. Of course, Gemini is not alone,” Gemini co-founder Cameron Winklevoss said at the time.

OpenSea, Crypto.com and Uniswap, among others, have also recently reported that the SEC had closed similar probes into their companies that were investigating alleged breaches of securities laws.

Magazine: Bitcoin ATH sooner than expected? XRP may drop 40%, and more: Hodler’s Digest, March 23 – 29

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto PAC-backed Republicans win US House seats in Florida special elections

Published

on

By

Crypto PAC-backed Republicans win US House seats in Florida special elections

Crypto PAC-backed Republicans win US House seats in Florida special elections

Two Republicans who received a combined $1.5 million from the crypto-backed political action committee (PAC) Fairshake will enter the US House after winning special elections in Florida.

Republican Jimmy Patronis won the vacant seat in Florida’s 1st Congressional District to replace Matt Gaetz, taking 57% of the vote to defeat Democrat Gay Valimont, according to AP News data.

Randy Fine also took Florida’s 6th Congressional District with 56.7% of the vote to beat his Democratic rival, public school teacher Josh Weil, and fill a seat left vacant by Mike Waltz, who took a job as White House national security adviser.

Florida’s 1st and 6th Congressional Districts — located in Florida’s western panhandle and along the state’s northeast coast — have been controlled by Republicans for roughly 30 years, but their lead has narrowed in recent years.

Fairshake, a PAC backed by crypto industry giants including Coinbase, Ripple and Andreessen Horowitz, gave Fine around $1.16 million in advertising spending and funneled $347,000 to Patronis to support his campaign.

Both Republicans have expressed support for the crypto industry, with Fine stating in a Jan. 14 X post that “Floridians want crypto innovation!”

Crypto PAC-backed Republicans win US House seats in Florida special elections

Source: Randy Fine

Fairshake and its affiliates poured around $170 million into the 2024 US presidential and congressional elections to back candidates who committed to supporting the crypto industry.

The wins by Patronis and Fine increased Republican representation in the House to 220 seats, with the Democrats holding 213 seats.

There are two vacant seats to be filled after Texas and Arizona Democrats Sylvester Turner and Raúl Grijalva died on March 5 and March 13, respectively.

Florida can expect to see a crypto-friendly regulatory environment 

The victories for Patronis and Fine likely mean that crypto legislation will continue to see support in the US capital.

The Republican Party would have maintained its House majority even if it lost both seats in Florida, but it would have made it more difficult for some of the recently introduced Republican-backed crypto bills to pass through the House and Senate.

Related: Florida bill proposes strict rules against online gambling

At the Digital Assets Summit on March 18, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna said he believes Congress “should be able to get” both a stablecoin and crypto market structure bill done this year.

Bills that could eventually make their way to the House include the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which passed the Senate Banking Committee in an 18-6 vote on March 13.

Senator Cynthia Lummis also reintroduced a Bitcoin reserve bill about a week after the Trump administration announced the establishment of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve on March 6, with the legislation referred to the Senate Banking Committee on March 11.

Magazine: Trump’s crypto ventures raise conflict of interest, insider trading questions

Continue Reading

Politics

UK trade bodies ask government to make crypto a ‘strategic priority’

Published

on

By

UK trade bodies ask government to make crypto a ‘strategic priority’

UK trade bodies ask government to make crypto a ‘strategic priority’

Several British trade associations have asked Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office to appoint a special envoy dedicated to crypto and for a dedicated action plan for digital assets and blockchain technology.

In a March 31 letter, the coalition of six UK digital economy trade bodies urged Starmer’s special adviser on business and investment, Varun Chandra, for a “greater strategic focus and alignment to deliver investment, growth and jobs” for the crypto industry. 

The group, which consisted of the UK Cryptoasset Business Council, Global Digital Finance, The Payments Association, Digital Currencies Governance Group, the Crypto Council for Innovation and techUK, noted the US policy shift on crypto under President Donald Trump and his appointment of a crypto czar.

Britain’s commitment to an economic trade deal focused on technological cooperation with the US “presents a significant opportunity to mirror the United States’ ambition in fostering leadership in blockchain, digital assets, and other emerging financial technologies,” the letter stated. 

The group recommended that the UK appoint a blockchain special envoy, similar to the US, to coordinate policy, foster innovation, and position the country competitively in global markets.

The trade bodies also called for the development of a dedicated government action plan for crypto and blockchain technology, including a concierge service to attract high-potential firms.

They added that the government should acknowledge and leverage the commonalities between blockchain, quantum computing and artificial intelligence technologies, including potential applications for government services.

Another recommendation was to create a high-level industry-government-regulator engagement forum to ensure informed decision-making and cross-sector collaboration.

UK trade bodies ask government to make crypto a ‘strategic priority’

The UK crypto and tech associations lobbying the government for a policy shift. Source: LinkedIn

“With deep pools of talent, access to capital, world-class academic institutions, and sophisticated regulators, the UK provides an environment where digital assets and blockchain innovation can thrive,” they stated. 

Related: UK should tax crypto buyers to boost stock investing, economy, says banker

The coalition argues that crypto and blockchain technology could boost the UK economy by 57 billion British pounds ($73.6 billion) over the next decade, with the sector potentially increasing global gross domestic product by 1.39 trillion pounds ($1.8 trillion) by 2030.

Tom Griffiths, the co-founder and managing partner of crypto compliance advisory firm BitCompli, said in response to the letter on LinkedIn that the Financial Conduct Authority “has a lot of talent and a good sight of future plans, but the UK is definitely losing pace with Dubai, Singapore, and other EU jurisdictions.”

“Now is the time for the FCA to act, or the UK will lose out on this huge opportunity, which is digital assets and all the benefits this sector can bring, not only now but over the next 20 years,” he added.

Magazine: Bitcoin ATH sooner than expected? XRP may drop 40%, and more: Hodler’s Digest, March 23 – 29

Continue Reading

Trending