Via some leaked documents the Observer got their hands on, we learn that the government is thinking about widening the formal definition of ‘extremism’ such that it’ll read:

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.

You don’t even have to be doing ‘extremist things’ yourself. You might just not be disapproving of the folk that do hard enough.

Part of the definition that this Brave New World of people who spend their time sitting in other people’s cars talking about freedom and their friends will be considering, if the leak doesn’t kill it, also includes:

Sustained support for, or continued uncritical association with organisations or individuals who are exhibiting extremist behaviours

I’ve a slight worry that this blog, perhaps even this post, will become technically ripe for a referral to the anti-extremism authorities.

I mean, with the criteria of undermining ‘the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy’ featuring up top, might we be in theoretical trouble for having cast a vote in favour of changing the electoral system we vote under in the 2011 national referendum? What remains of the Lib Dems better watch out!

The various civil rights groups we have are rightly rather unhappy about this.

From the director of Liberty:

This proposed change would be a reckless and cynical move, threatening to significantly suppress freedom of expression

The editor of Index on Censorship:

This is an unwarranted attack on freedom of expression and would potentially criminalise every student radical and revolutionary dissident.

The racial justice director of Amnesty International:

The definition of extremism and its usage in counter-terrorism policies like [counter-terrorism strategy] Prevent is already being applied so broadly it seeks to effectively hinder people from organising and mobilising. The proposed definition takes this even further and could criminalise any dissent.

The leaked Govenrment document lists some organisations that they’d consider as being ‘captured’ by this proposed new definition. These include Muslim Council of Britain, Palestine Action and Muslim Engagement and Development.

It’s not like the current definition of extremism we have is particularly narrow.

…active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs

But I suppose at least you have to be ‘actively opposed’ at present. And, judging by the fact that more of our politicians aren’t in extremism jail, it seems like at least the latter part of the definition isn’t particularly strongly enforced.

Not that it’s stopped at least 45 peaceful environmental activists being referred to the Government’s current anti-extremism program. That situation that provoked Liberty to speak out once again at the time:

This reinforces long-held concerns that the government’s staggeringly broad definition of extremism enables the police to characterise non-violent political activity as a threat, and monitor and control any community they wish.

As ever, even if for some absolutely inexplicable reason you trust the current government and other arms of the state not to abuse the extraordinarily wide definitions of these very hot-button, very political, very emotional topics, one must remember that things change. Some even worse folk could come along in the future. And it’d be nice if they didn’t automatically inherit the power to silence or punish anything that could be vaguely categorised as dissent against their preferences.