This war on multiculturalism is an affront to our country
Sarah Owen is the Labour MP for Luton North
What does Lee Anderson mean when he says “I want my country back?” Who does he want it back from – and why is it only his version of our country that matters?
Because as far as I can see, there has been no take over. Most people in control of our country still look like Lee Anderson. They are his demographic and age, if perhaps not class. So who else could he possibly mean?
This comes with the backdrop of his demonstrably Islamophobic comments about Sadiq Khan (which he still refuses to apologise for) and his most recent former Party receiving political donations from a man who says that Diane Abbott makes you want to ‘hate all Black women’ and wishes she was shot. Only some Conservatives have admitted it was racist, but stopped short of apologising for racism and no Ministers have indicated that the money should be handed back. It is a shameful lack of leadership that Sunak is having to be dragged to admit what is clear for everyone else to see.
The idea that any of this can be forgotten about, as the Prime Minister wants, is for the birds – not because it has dominated the media cycle for the last two weeks, but because this racism is the cold reality of too many people’s everyday lives in Tory Britain. Recorded incidents of both Islamophobia and Antisemitism have risen following the geo-political crises in the Middle East, and a 2022 study found that nearly two thirds of Black workers in the UK have encountered racism in their workplace.
This war on multiculturalism is an affront to our country. I am from a multicultural, mixed heritage family – my father is white British and my mother is from Malaysia. I have considered it to be a blessing in many ways but the political discourse lately ignores the fact that our country is so much richer for its diversity – not just in culture, but also economically. Luton came third in JustGiving’s 2023 list of the highest donating areas. Our community is as generous as it is welcoming, and it comes as no surprise to me that the bulk of our donations are given during Ramadan.
The town I live in, love and represent is Luton North. It is a town that knows the importance of community cohesion and that it doesn’t just come without trying, especially when those in power or particular media outlets seek division and distraction from government failure.
Communities secretary, Michael Gove, February 11, 2024
DEMOCRACY is under threat, campaigners warned today as the Tories launched a new “anti-extremism” drive aimed mainly against Muslims.
Communities Secretary Michael Gove named three Muslim organisations in the Commons as he unveiled the government’s new definition of extremism, apparently responding to the mass movement of solidarity with the Palestinian people that has mushroomed over the last five months.
One of the organisations named by Mr Gove, the Muslim Association of Britain, has been part of the coalition of five groups organising the national demonstrations.
The others singled out by the Tories are Mend and Cage. For show, two obscure far-right groups, British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, were also identified.
The five pro-Palestinian campaigns, which include Stop the War and Palestine Solidarity, said in a statement that the “redefinition of extremism is in reality an assault on core democratic freedoms, seeking to silence dissenting voices.”
Stressing “the fundamental right to legitimately campaign to change government policy,” the joint statement added that “the marches have been overwhelmingly peaceful and attended by a broad cross-section of British society.
You want groups that fit this definition: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: 1 negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or 2 undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or 3 intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).” source: UK ministers and officials to be banned from contact with groups labelled extremist.
UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claims “There is a growing consensus that mob rule is replacing democratic rule. And we’ve got to collectively, all of us, change that urgently.” Sunak is recognised as a war criminal due to his complicity in genocide.
The UK Conservative Party and the UK Labour party certainly meet this definition. Promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance.
Where shall I start? Both the Conservative and Labour party promote and advance Zionism, an ideology based on violence, hatred and intolerance that also meets the secondary condition 1. (aims to) negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Many rights are denied: the right to life and the right to be free from degrading or inhuman treatment. The Conservative and Labour parties are complicit in genocide, I’m not sure that you can get more extremist than that.
Then there’s the persecution of Julian Assange. That’s the advancement of an ideology based on intolerance aiming to deny Assanges fundamental rights and freedoms. That’s both the Conservative party and UK’s Labour party again. There are strong indicators that the Labour party’s Keir Starmer was directly involved in Assange’s early persecution.
Response to Rishi Sunak’s extremism speech at Downing Street 1 March 2024.
Here’s the leader of the Conservative party, Rishi Sunak. He’s pictured giving an extremist speech trying to undermine democracy and democratic rights e.g. the democratic right to protest, on 1 March 2024. He also involved in mob rule – he rules for a small group of very wealthy, nasty people – some of them tax avoiders and newspaper owners. Anyway Michael, I expect that you’ll be hearing more from me about these extremist groups, there’s plenty more to their extremism.
The MP, who sits as an independent and was dragged into the centre of the race row, turned her fire on Sir Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak after the pair clashed over the issue at PMQs on Wednesday.
Mr Sunak has refused to hand back a £10m donation from businessman Frank Hester after he allegedly said Ms Abbott made him “want to hate all Black women” and that she should be “shot”.
Writing in The Independent, Britain’s longest-serving Black MP described his words as “outrageously racist and sexist” and added: “I am afraid long-term experience teaches me that the Tory party has long been a source of whipping up racism in this country, including directed at me personally.”
Abbott has attacked Starmer and Labour over racism in the party (Getty)
She also attacked Sir Keir and said: “The position of the current leadership of the Labour Party is disappointing, which seemed equally reluctant at the outset to call out either racism or sexism.
“Instead, the entire focus was on the demand that the Tories give Hester back his money, which is surely not the primary point in this case.”
Ms Abbott, who was a Labour MP for more than three decades until she was suspended last year, said her former party had initially failed to label Mr Hester’s alleged comments against her as racist and sexist.
She went on to condemn the “shocking levels of racism and sexism from within the Labour Party, again much of it directed against me personally”.
Unhappy with large protests against the increasingly dire situation in Gaza, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is seeking to update the UK’s definition of extremism. This, he has argued, is needed because “our democracy itself is a target” of antisemitic and Islamophobic extremists.
However, the reality is that no measures do more damage to democracy than policy proposals like the one Sunak is promoting.
The UK already has a definition for extremism, which is used in efforts to tackle terrorism. We may think of the police as leading those efforts, but the UK’s Prevent strategy now also places a duty on certain other authorities to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.
These authorities include local government, education institutions and the NHS. In reality, the UK has placed teachers and NHS staff on the frontline in the fight against terrorism, on top of all their other duties that they were actually trained to do.
To help those with a duty under Prevent to identify people at risk of being drawn into terrorism, the government currently 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”. Also included are “calls for the death of members of our armed forces”.
This definition is not contained in any law, however. Instead, it features in the government’s Prevent guidance. A key reason why this definition is not contained in legislation is because it is so vague and unclear. It would be difficult to legally oblige anyone with a duty under Prevent to apply the definition – and even more difficult for a court to determine what it means.
Even as guidance, there are still problems with the definition. It offers enormous discretion to the people deciding who is at risk of being drawn into terrorism. Discretion can lead to inconsistent application. That, in turn, can lead to discrimination.
Vague to vaguer
It has been suggested that the new definition of extremism will include the “promotion or advancement of ideology based on hatred, intolerance or violence or undermining or overturning the rights or freedoms of others, or of undermining democracy itself”.
What does it mean to undermine or overturn the rights or freedoms of others? Would arguing for the UK to leave the European convention on human rights count meet the bar?
Likewise, what does it mean to undermine democracy? Does excessive corporate lobbying do so? What about calling for restrictions on the right to free speech or the right to protest? These are fundamental rights that are absolutely necessary for a democracy to flourish. Would they be extremist?
Existing laws are enough
Sunak is presenting the new definition of extremism as a response to protests he depicts as being out of control. But the UK already has numerous laws in place to tackle what it considers to be unacceptable behaviour at protests. The Terrorism Act (which is also incredibly broad) can be used to prosecute people who damage property or create a serious risk to public safety during protests.
Counter-terrorism laws can also capture forms of expression at public demonstrations or online. It is already a crime to express support for a proscribed (unlawful) organisation, or to wear clothing, symbols or publish images in a way which can raise suspicion that you support an unlawful organisation. So, for example, if you express support for Hamas — a proscribed organisation — you are already committing a crime and can be prosecuted for it.
Meanwhile, the Public Order Act contains offences dealing with hate speech. These include using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displaying written material which is intended to or likely to stir up racial or religious hatred.
In 2022, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act expanded the criminal offence of causing a public nuisance to include “serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity”. This can now be applied by he police to criminalise protests that are considered to be making too much noise.
It is hard, therefore, to see which bases are not already covered for a government looking to prosecute people for extremism. These mechanisms have already been used to clamp down on all kinds of activism. In reality, there is no gap in the law that needs fixing. Rather, this proposal looks like a classic example of a government talking tough on crime and terrorism in order to boost its poll ratings in an election year.
The right to protest
Adding new definitions for extremism only creates problems. The vaguer a definition gets, the easier it is to misuse. It can also have a pervasive chilling effect on free speech. People may self-censor out of fear of being identified as extremist, not least when their employer has a duty under Prevent.
The fact of the matter is that human rights law allows for protests to be disruptive. Otherwise, they could be simply ignored. Human rights law also allows people to “shock, offend, and disturb” through speech.
The government may not be happy with large public protests against its foreign policy but it should not be viewed as extremist to march for a ceasefire in Gaza. Likewise, it should not be viewed as extremist to vocalise opposition to the potential genocide being committed by the Israeli Defence Forces. If this were so, then the International Court of Justice is extremist.
There is a deep danger of conflating protest with extremism and terrorism, undermining the legitimacy of these protests. To stretch the concept of extremism to cover these views is what is actually undermining democracy and the rights and freedoms of others.
