New government counter-extremism proposals are promising - if they can be delivered

This week the government published Protecting What Matters: a new action plan aimed at strengthening social cohesion and countering extremism. The document is a “call to action”, rather than a fully developed strategy. That is an important feature. There is explicit recognition that these measures are only a starting point and that further work will be required to address the continuing threat of extremism in the United Kingdom. That will be an endeavour which will engage all Government departments, coordinated by a Social Cohesion Taskforce, overseen by a ministerial steering group, with regular reporting to the Prime Minister.

One curious feature of the plan is that it has been developed by the Department for Communities, rather than by the Home Office. This partly explains its structure, which combines community cohesion initiatives with counter-extremism measures. But the document also adopts an important conceptual approach: it recognises that extremism undermines social cohesion, not the other way around. Sustainable cohesion depends on the state’s ability to identify, counter and disrupt extremist networks that seek to divide our society.

The most significant proposals concern the government’s disruption capabilities, in relation to which a notably muscular approach is to be taken. The Home Office intends to substantially expand its specialist unit responsible for disrupting extremist activity. At present, this unit consists of only two staff members. It will now be expanded to around twenty officials, with responsibility for coordinating government interventions against extremist networks. As a result, we can expect to see more active disruption of extremist meetings and action to limit the influence of problematic organisations. At the same time, there will be a renewed focus on the denial of visas to overseas extremists who seek to visit the United Kingdom.

The plan also proposes strengthening the powers of the Charity Commission. In the past two years, the Commission has opened numerous investigations into hate preaching and extremist activity within certain mosques. But the current limited powers and resources of the Charity Commission mean that even where the problems are persistent, the regulator has lacked the powers necessary to close down institutions that could not realistically be reformed. The new measures are intended to address this gap.

The government is also tackling the problem of extremism on university campuses. For several years some universities have hosted a parade of extremist speakers, with little meaningful pushback from institutional authorities. Strengthening oversight and enforcement of Prevent duties therefore should be welcomed.

Another element of the strategy concerns the issue of “blasphemy” intimidation. The document makes clear that the United Kingdom does not recognise any form of blasphemy law. It also commits the government to supporting police where individuals attempt to intimidate or harass others on the basis of alleged “blasphemy”. This position is closely linked to the new non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility, which is designed to protect Muslim individuals, not religious beliefs themselves.

The strategy proposes the publication of an annual “State of Extremism” report. If designed properly, this report could become an important tool for scoping extremist threats in the United Kingdom. However, its usefulness will depend on its content. In the past, government efforts to describe extremist actors have often been constrained by the risks posed by defamation law. The threat of litigation has sometimes made it difficult to speak openly about organisations and individuals that present an extremist challenge. This, in turn, has contributed to a lack of authoritative knowledge about the sources of extremist threats. Without such knowledge, policymakers and civil servants fight extremism in the dark. It is therefore vital that this report clearly identifies problematic organisations and individuals, and that it is published in a manner that avoids the sort of inhibition of candour that has marked past efforts.

Protecting What Matters marks an important step in how the United Kingdom responds to the threat of extremism. However, the real test will be how its proposals are delivered in practice.

David Toube is General Counsel at the Jewish Leadership Council