Rishi Sunak is wrong to want to treat those who vilify the UK as extremists, mainly because we can’t define what an “extremist” is.

This week Rishi Sunak, as part of his leadership bid, has stated that he wants to widen the definition of “extremism” to include "those with an extreme hatred of our country" and that those who “vilify the UK will be treated as extremists” and could be referred to the Counter Terrorism Prevent programme.

The announcement met with criticism from the former national lead for Prevent, Sir Peter Fahy, who questioned the meaning of “vilification”, saying “the widening of Prevent could damage its credibility and reputation. It makes it more about people’s thoughts and opinions”. Sir Peter is right and there is some really muddled thinking here. However, this is not all Rishi Sunak’s fault, we’ve been on a worrying trajectory for some time.

We must be clear that our Prevent Strategy sits as one of the “Four P’s” (alongside Pursue, Protect and Prepare) of our Counter Terrorism “Contest Strategy”, the most recent version of which was published in 2018. The objective of Prevent is to “stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”. Prevent is therefore rooted in our suite of responses to tackle TERRORISM. ?

Under the Theresa May Government, the separate Commission for Countering Extremism was formed and given the unenviable task of defining what “extremism” means. In October 2019 the Commission’s review of the existing Extremism Strategy was published. The report was critical of the Government’s approach to countering extremism thus far principally due to the expansive way in which “extremism” is framed and makes the case for a new “Hateful Extremism” definition:

Hateful Extremism is “Activity or materials directed at an out-group who are perceived as a threat to an in-group, who are motivated by or intending to advance a political, religious or racial supremacist ideology:

a. To create a climate conducive to hate crime, terrorism or other violence; or

b. Attempt to erode or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of our democratic society as protected under Article 17 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998”.

The lines between counter terrorism and counter extremism have become unhelpfully blurred and it worries me when I hear Prevent practitioners use the terms interchangeably, particularly because there is no legal or even consensus on the definition of “extremism”. And yet this term is thrown around with abandon particularly on social media by those who fail to articulate coherent arguments and instead seek to shut down those with whom they disagree. Defining the term is a tricky business and David Anderson, QC, the former independent reviewer of counter terrorism legislation, highlighted how the government’s attempts to define extremism have failed the so-called Clarkson test.

I have covered the Commission’s definition of “Hateful Extremism” in my vlog. Ultimately it blurs the lines between terrorism and hate crime legislation, in an attempt to create a new body of practice which is not underpinned by any new laws, and which has left practitioners pondering “so what?”. ??

I cannot understand why we continue to throw more Government time and energy into the rather futile pursuit of defining extremism at all. This appears to only benefit academics who are more than willing to carry out extensive research to provide better and more nuanced definitions of “extremism” or “violent extremism”. This does not strengthen our counter terrorism response and our efforts to build stronger, more integrated communities which are resilient to terrorist groups seeking to recruit individuals to their causes.

We do need a policy response to those who vilify the UK. On that Rishi Sunak is correct. But it is not a counter terrorism or counter extremism response. It is one situated within a more muscular community integration Strategy, championing British Values, which is best situated within the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities to mobilize and galvanize local authorities to action. We should dust off Dame Louise Casey’s 2016 review into Opportunity and Integration which found plenty of instances of communities living apart rather than effectively integrating. Dame Casey made a compelling case for increased emphasis at the local government level to build community cohesion. None of this is about terrorism or “extremism”, it’s about getting the basics right. ?

I have seen first-hand through international development work that the UK is a force for good in the world and is truly world leading in its counter terrorism approach. But we cannot risk expanding the borders of what counter terrorism means as this jeopardizes the gains we’ve made by not only encroaching upon hard won freedoms of speech and thought but by allowing ourselves to become bogged down in a quagmire of procrastination over definitions. ?This was a rabbit hole Rishi Sunak didn’t need to go down, particularly as we are yet to see the results of Sir William Shawcross’s independent review of the Prevent Strategy which has suffered a raft of delays. Let’s hope the review will refocus Prevent on what it was always intended to do. As a first step we must decouple it from notions of “counter extremism” which would be far better refocused through an effective community integration strategy.?