The Guardian
Cross-party committee says there is no need for a new law, adding that proposals are alarmingly vague and will lead to people being wrongly suspected
Armed police at St Pancras station in London after the Brussels airport blasts in March 2016. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA
The government’s planned laws for countering extremism and terrorism are confusing, based on questionable assumptions, and risk bringing law abiding people under unnecessary scrutiny, according to a damning report by a cross-party group of MPs and peers.
The much delayed counter-extremism bill, now rebranded as the counter-extremism and safeguarding bill, has yet to even properly define its core issues of “nonviolent extremism” and “British values”, the joint committee on human rights said.
Amid the confusion the government had not shown that there was even a need for a new law, the committee’s report said, as virtually all possible offences appeared to fall under existing legislation.
“Providing a clear definition of extremism is a difficult task and the government has yet to succeed in doing it,” said the Labour MP Harriet Harman, who chairs the committee.
The bill, a new version of which was included in the Queen’s speech in May, sets out a range of proposed civil orders to combat extremism, which is defined only as “the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
The committee said this view appeared alarmingly vague, noting that one academic who gave evidence to their inquiry said it would mean, in theory, that her university should “burn all our books by Plato and refer half our philosophy department who question these matters”.
An overly broad law could mean many nonviolent people being wrongly suspected, the report said. “If it becomes a function of the state to identify which individuals are engaged in, or exposed to, a broad range of ‘extremist activity’, it will become legitimate for the state to scrutinise (and the citizen to inform upon) the exercise of core democratic freedoms by large numbers of law abiding people.”
The report also expressed concern at the idea of using banning orders based on civil law to clamp down on perceived extremism. It warned: “Such orders could be used in a profoundly illiberal way. The obvious concern is that such orders could be used as a means to avoid having to make a criminal case to the requisite standard of proof.”
The committee also questioned the government’s “escalator” approach to extremism, which presumes that people begin with religious conservatism and end up backing violent jihadism, meaning that a way to stop violence was to clamp down on religious conservatism. The report said it was “by no means proven or agreed that religious conservatism in itself correlates with support for violent jihadism”.
Harman said there could be a particular problem when dealing with Islamic communities. “The most precious asset in the fight against terrorism is the relationship between the authorities and the Muslim communities of this country,” she said. “We must guard against any undermining of the relationship between the authorities and Muslim communities, which would make the fight against terrorism even harder.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Extremism causes terrorism and broader social harms, including hate crime, honour-based violence and discrimination. That is why we published a counter-extremism strategy which confronts all forms of extremist ideology head on, supports mainstream voices, and builds stronger and more cohesive communities.
“This broad counter-extremism agenda is distinct and complementary to our Prevent programme, which safeguards those who may be vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. Prevent is both challenging and vitally important work. The threat we face, particularly from Daesh, is very real, and we have seen all too starkly and tragically the devastating impact radicalisation can have on individuals, families and communities. We will carefully consider the joint committee on human rights’ report and respond in due course.”
