Non-violent extremism: some questions about laws and limits – Robert Gleave and Lawrence McNamara

22 May 2015 by

ExtremismII-2Sajid Javid’s reported objections to the Government’s pre-election proposals on countering extremist ideas uncover just how controversial the new laws will be. He had objected, it seems, to a mooted expansion of Ofcom’s powers to take pre-emptive action to prevent the broadcast of programmes with ‘extremist content’ before they are transmitted. 

That specific proposal may no longer be part of the proposed laws, but Ofcom is likely to be given powers to move against broadcasters after transmission.   And there will be plenty else to discuss when the legislation is likely announced in the Queen’s Speech next week.

The main points have already been revealed when last week the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary announced that new laws will be introduced ‘to make it much harder for people to promote dangerous extremist views in our communities.’ As always in counter-terrorism laws, the relationship between freedom and security will be brought into sharp focus when the proposals are debated. In this piece we set down some of the questions which we think warrant attention. 

By a timely coincidence, the day after the government’s announcement, a workshop was convened to examine precisely the issues that these laws address. The workshop, titled ‘Thoughtcrimes?’, brought together around 20 legal practitioners and academics to look at how the latest law and security research might inform practice, to test those academic ideas and practitioner experience, and to consider the issues that arise in the proposals forecast by the government.

We do not speak for any or all in that group. However, the fortuitous opportunity to gather expert insights into immediate concerns is self-evidently valuable.

The proposals

The government tells us that new legislation is expected to include:

  • Banning Orders for extremist organisations who seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places
  • new Extremism Disruption Orders to restrict people who seek to radicalise young people
  • powers to close premises where extremists seek to influence others
  • strengthening the powers of the Charity Commission to root out charities who misappropriate funds towards extremism and terrorism
  • further immigration restrictions on extremists
  • a strengthened role for Ofcom to take action against channels which broadcast extremist content

These follow on closely from the findings of the Prime Minister’s Extremism Taskforce reported in December 2013, and much of the above has already been mapped out. It seems likely a Bill will appear before the summer. The discussions at the ‘Thoughtcrimes?’ workshop raised some fundamental questions that will need to be addressed in the Bill’s drafting.

What is ‘extremism’?

The Prevent strategy defines 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 beliefs.’ It includes ‘calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas.’

‘Non-violent extremism’ is defined as extremism (in those same terms) ‘which is not accompanied by violence.’

Some questions about laws

First, central to the debate around the new legislation will be whether it is justified to curtail the speech and activities of so-called ‘non-violent extremists’ as a counter-terrorism measure. Importantly, it appears that the proposed measures will limit speech and actions which are not at present illegal and which, even after the enactment of the proposed legislation, would still not be punishable by the criminal law nor give rise to any civil liability.

Secondly, Banning Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders will, it seems, use civil measures and a civil standard of proof and so do not criminalise speech. However, the breach of an order would be a criminal offence and, as such, continues the now-familiar blurring of civil and criminal lines. The proposals will move substantially into areas of speech that have traditionally been protected as core commitments of liberalism.

There are contradictions in the removal of such protections, and in the very rationale behind the proposals. The Prime Minister’s announcement says on the one hand that ‘we have been a passively tolerant society for too long’ and that the new government ‘will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.’ At the same time, the Prime Minister says that the change ‘means actively promoting certain values [including] freedom of speech.’

That contradiction cannot be dismissed by simply saying that free speech is not an absolute. It has never been absolute and few claim there should be no limits. However, as the Prime Minister’s words indicate, these laws will seek to tread on ground where liberal democracies have – for good reasons – long allowed speech to prevail.

We are likely to see a revisiting of concerns raised in debates around the Counter-Terrorism Act 2015, and especially those raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) in relation to academic freedom and free speech, but this time the application is much wider.

Thirdly, there will be rule of law challenges. Not least among these will be concerns about whether there is sufficient certainty and clarity in the ways that ‘British values’ and ‘extremism’ are defined. As the law encroaches further into the freedom of expression and belief, the question is not only what is it that we cannot do, but one might also ask, ‘What is it that we can be sure we can say or do without being at risk of legal action?’ Drawing on Lord Bingham’s explanation of the rule of law, we must be able to know what it is we can and cannot do without falling foul of the law, and we must be able to ascertain what our obligations are in fulfilling our duties. The latter is a matter that regulators might be alert to.

Fourthly, there are questions of evidence. Given the number of unknown factors in the radicalisation process, how is the risk to public security to be weighed up against the suppression of personal freedoms?

Fifthly, there are questions of practicality and, in turn, whether the application of these laws may have unintended or divisive consequences. In particular, what issues would these laws raise for law enforcement and community relations?

Some questions about limits

There are obviously significant free speech issues which will fall for debate. However, it is worth asking whether the challenges go further than this. Are we moving into the Orwellian realm of thoughtcrimes, where certain types of belief commitments, rather than any illegal actions, are regulated, restricted and may result in imprisonment?

We are not saying that this is what such laws will do, nor that it is the best way to characterise the laws, but we are saying that it is almost certain that the laws will be challenged in those terms. Three short observations illustrate how this is so.

First, the contradictions and vagueness in the definition of extremism, and not least the co-existence of tolerance and intolerance of faith commitments that it contains, seem to inescapably require in application the delineation of what are ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ beliefs.

Secondly, that delineation will trouble many people. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police observed last year that regulation of extremism was a concern for police. There is a danger, he said, ‘of us being turned into a thought police.’

Thirdly, even if one were to accept that all of what is proposed should be enacted, will we then be at the limit of what is restricted? Or might the legislature go further still? If so, how much further?

Each new round of counter-terrorism legislation rightly receives close and critical attention. In this coming round there are some profoundly important questions to be asked. What, exactly, will the law regulate? And where, exactly, do we stop?

Robert Gleave is Professor of Arabic Studies at the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the University of Exeter.   Lawrence McNamara is Deputy Director at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law.


The workshop on 14 May 2015 was the first in the Thoughtcrimes seminar series Professor Gleave is running on extremism and counter-terrorism as part of an ESRC-funded project, Islamic Reformulations.



  1. Spiro Ozer says:

    Any government that criminalises “opposition to fundamental British values” , where it arrogates to itself the power to define these alleged values, has lost any moral right to govern in a democracy. Not that that has ever stopped any Home Secretary in the past, or ever will.

  2. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  3. JonathanC says:

    Critique of the proposals is that they run contrary to the Rule of Law.

    “Drawing on Lord Bingham’s explanation of the rule of law, we must be able to know what it is we can and cannot do without falling foul of the law, and we must be able to ascertain what our obligations are in fulfilling our duties.”

    The Rule of Law is a fundamental British value. Ipso facto, those who propose these measures are extremists who would fall foul of their own legislation.

  4. NMac says:

    By “extremist” do they mean anyone who dares to criticise the Tory Party?

  5. John Allman says:

    Vaguely insulting terms like “extremist”, “radical” and “bigot”, are typically used nowadays not in order to convey information or advance well-crafted arguments for favouring one belief, opinion or policy preference over another. They are more often used as euphemisms for stronger, more unparliamentary language put-downs (for example those of anatomical etymology), in order to render what is, at heart, mindless hate speech, sufficiently mealy-mouthed to enable it to disguised as reasonableness.

    If something is right and true, then surely the more extremely one believes it, and speaks it out, the better.

    If standing for Parliament four times has taught me one thing, it is that there are an awful lot of people in the UK who don’t believe in democracy. In their minds, the mere fact that I was a candidate was enough for many who have, or could have the vote, to decide that I was just another one of “them”, for whom they would no more vote than the rest of the candidates, from parties they’d heard of.

    Call me a “radicalised” old man if you must, but I estimate that David Cameron single-handedly poses a greater threat to liberal democracy, in my estimation, than any of the underdogs he wants to crush even more severely in future.

    John Allman
    “Let every child have both parents” candidate for North Corwall in the recent general election

  6. djmalz says:

    Just a minute are we really going to allow this version of religion on to our shores without so much as a challenge. I think not. Sharia Law which these extremist views support directly create unequal conditions and very violent conditions for women. Are we really going to allow this to all happen without women speaking up. Broadcasting such material contained in Sharia Law is directly contravening the Equality Act we hope, or is the Equality Act only for some people to follow? It is time the religious diatribe is challenged. Secular women in Iran and Middle Eastern countries do this daily, they are well practised at it. Usually they do it in the form of a send up of religion including all mythical creatures. There should be One Law For All and absolutely no respect for those hypocrites of any shade who treat women and children as lesser human beings.

  7. djmalz says:

    Just a minute when are the above so called supporters of Human Rights going to discuss the effect of Sharia Law on women. Yes it would suit some very nicely to bring in the idea of religious thought police. Again and again we see a trail of religious men and some women trundled out and given the right to say they and only they speak for what is a religious take on an issue. Frequently without question this so called religious diatribe is given the status of moral thought, but just a none western version. It is not . Secular women in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries challenge the religious men and women face to face every day. In this country women are certainly not going to be phased by the hypocrites of any shade spouting what is moral. There is and should always be One Law For All. How about that as the foundation of Human Rights in the British Isles.

  8. Ted Jusant says:

    So they are gpoing to LOCK UP all the none violent extremist ,and leave all the VIOLENT EXTREMIST free, ? Some thing wrong with this PICTURE.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: