The government’s proposal to redefine extremism will “vilify the wrong people” and “risk more division”, according to a coalition of Muslim organisations.
Signatories include groups which fear they may fall under the new definition announced as part of the government’s new counter-extremism strategy today.
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'”.
This follows warnings by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, that the proposals risk “disproportionately targeting Muslim communities”.
Sky News also spoke to Shakeel Afsar, a vocal protester who has led pro-Palestinian demonstrations through the streets of Birmingham.
Advertisement
Image: Mr Afsar at a protest. Pic: Shak_afsar1
Mr Afsar told Sky News: “This is only being passed to silence us and to put a zip on our mouth and say what you are saying is not acceptable, it won’t be entertained, and that’s wrong.
“This is not the democratic country that I grew up in. As far as I was aware, we had a right to speak.
“And what I’m saying is not my view. You could take a walk down streets in many areas and every single thing that we have said and done is agreed by many, many thousands of British citizens.”
Mr Afsar made headlines five years ago when a protest exclusion zone was set up around a Birmingham primary school after he led a campaign against the inclusion of LGBT literature.
He’s more recently re-emerged organising pro-Palestinian marches.
In one video, he tells the crowd: “The local police have released a statement saying we cannot say ‘from the river to the sea,’ so what do we say…”
The crowd chants back: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
He says he does not support what Hamas did on 7 October last year. However, his views and actions might still be considered extremist.
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Communities Secretary Michael Gove said “when you’re saying ‘from the river to the sea’, you’re explicitly saying, ‘I want to see the end of Israel as a Jewish State’.”
Image: Michael Gove. Pic: No 10 Downing Street
Responding, Mr Afsar said: “I want to see the end of the occupying force that is forcefully occupying Palestine.
“And I want to see the British establishment support the right of the Palestinians to arm themselves and defend themselves against the oppressors.”
He denies that this means the annihilation of Israel, but rather that they create “a democratic country, where they all live peacefully”.
Mr Gove said pro-Palestinian events “have been organised by extremist organisations”.
And it will be one of the challenges of this definition to decide who falls under it.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:56
Minister defends new definition of extremism
The current definition defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to British values”.
However, Sky News understands the updated definition is going to include the “promotion or advancement of ideology based on hatred, intolerance or violence or undermining or overturning the rights or freedoms of others, or of undermining democracy itself”.
Extremism definitions
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?
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”.
Dr Alan Mendoza, from the Henry Jackson Society, told Sky News: “This definition does not ban extremism.
“What it bans is the government giving money or platforms to extremists.
“You can still have freedom of thought on this basis, but I think what is quite clear is we don’t want extremist groups to be empowered by government – we want them as far away in the margins of life as possible.”
But one group which fears it will be banned is MEND.
It opposed the government’s anti-radicalisation programme Prevent and accused them of Islamophobia. It also helps train institutions about Islamophobia.
Image: Abdullah Saif. Pic: Andy Portch
Abdullah Saif, who represents the group in Birmingham, said: “People who engage with the Muslim community, whether it be in the hospital or the police or any other organisations, universities, they reach out to us saying, listen, you have some really good material and we’d like you to train our staff, to talk to us about these issues.
“If it does indeed come about that we are all put on some kind of list, [it] is to kind of stifle that kind of conversation.
“I think it’s an old tactic really, that if someone is against you, then you just put this label on them and then you don’t have to engage with them.”
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.
Rachel Reeves has not offered her resignation and is “going nowhere”, Downing Street has said, following her tearful appearance in the House of Commons.
A Number 10 spokesperson said the chancellor had the “full backing” of Sir Keir Starmer, despite Ms Reeves looking visibly upset during Prime Minister’s Questions.
A spokesperson for the chancellor later clarified that Ms Reeves had been affected by a “personal matter” and would be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.
UK government bond prices fell by the most since October 2022, and the pound tumbled after Ms Reeves’s Commons appearance, while the yield on the 10-year government bond, or gilt, rose as much as 22 basis points at one point to around 4.68%.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch branded the chancellor the “human shield” for the prime minister’s “incompetence” just hours after he was forced to perform a humiliating U-turn over his controversial welfare bill.
Emotional Reeves a painful watch – and reminder of tough decisions ahead
It is hard to think of a PMQs like it – it was a painful watch.
The prime minister battled on, his tone assured, even if his actual words were not always convincing.
But it was the chancellor next to him that attracted the most attention.
Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset.
It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.
Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, Ms Badenoch said: “This man has forgotten that his welfare bill was there to plug a black hole created by the chancellor. Instead they’re creating new ones.”
Turning to the chancellor, the Tory leader added: “[She] is pointing at me – she looks absolutely miserable.
“Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?”
Not fully answering the question, the prime minister replied: “[Ms Badenoch] certainly won’t.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:58
Welfare vote ‘a blow to the prime minister’
“I have to say, I’m always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.”
Mrs Badenoch interjected: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”
A total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the bill – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.
After multiple concessions made due to threats of a Labour rebellion, many MPs questioned what they were voting for as the bill had been severely stripped down.
They ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.
Ms Badenoch said the climbdown was proof that Sir Keir was “too weak to get anything done”.
Ms Reeves has also borne a lot of the criticism over the handling of the vote, with some MPs believing that her strict approach to fiscal rules has meant she has approached the ballooning welfare bill from the standpoint of trying to make savings, rather than getting people into work.
Experts have now warned that the welfare U-turn, on top of reversing the cut to winter fuel, means that tax rises in the autumn are more likely – with Ms Reeves now needing to find £5bn to make up for the policy U-turns.
Asked by Ms Badenoch whether he could rule out further tax rises – something Labour promised it would not do on working people in its manifesto – Sir Keir said: “She knows that no prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future.
“But she talks about growth, for 14 years we had stagnation, and that is what caused the problem.”
Prosecutors are considering whether to bring further criminal charges against Lucy Letby over the deaths of babies at two hospitals where she worked
The Crown Prosecution Service said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.
“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.
“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”
Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.
Image: Letby worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital
She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.
Police said in December that Letby was interviewed in prison as part of an investigation into more baby deaths and non-fatal collapses.
A Cheshire Constabulary spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Cheshire Constabulary has submitted a full file of evidence to the CPS for charging advice regarding the ongoing investigation into deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neo-natal units of both the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Liverpool Women’s Hospital as part of Operation Hummingbird.”
Detectives previously said the investigation was looking into the full period of time that Letby worked as a nurse, covering the period from 2012 to 2016 and including a review of 4,000 admissions of babies.
Letby’s lawyer Mark McDonald said: “The evidence of the innocence of Lucy Letby is overwhelming,” adding: “We will cross every bridge when we get to it but if Lucy is charged I know we have a whole army of internationally renowned medical experts who will totally undermine the prosecution’s unfounded allegations.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
Three managers at the hospital where Lucy Letby worked have been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.
Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.
Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
The Crown Prosecution Service has said it is considering whether to bring further criminal charges over the deaths of babies at hospitals where Lucy Letby worked.
The CPS said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.
“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.
“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”
Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.
She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.
Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.
Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.