Expect Gove’s stupid plan to lead to a mass-crackdown by Labour on those opposed to their Racial Equality Act Bill which they will bring in early 2025. Not a single one of England’s hundreds of thousands of Islamists will be prosecuted under this amended definition.
Instead it will be wielded against a few hundred known right wingers and the chilling effect will crush resistance to a new regime of racial grifting in public procurement. The Tories, as ever, are helping to doom themselves. Funny how Gove always seems to be there holding the knife.
“Instead it will be wielded against a few hundred known right wingers“
You are, I’m afraid, wrong. It will be wielded against anybody and everybody with the ‘wrong’ opinion (cowing the remainder into submission), and especially those who previously considers themselves ‘correct’ (isn’t that right TERFS ?). Basically, anyone, and everyone, who veers from the approved path, can and will be labelled as ‘far right’ (increasingly meaningless) and be fair game for online attack dogs or the authorities.
The world, as we know it, may not end, but gradually, maybe imperceptibly, what seemed perfectly normal today, or yesterday (Friends/Yes Minister etc) will be signs of unhealthy deviance, tantamount to the worst excess of the ‘real’ far right.
Anyone who vocally disagrees wilh anglophobia will be criminalised
Hugh Bryant
2 months ago
Will this new ‘definition’ prevent grifters like Chris Packham from advocating the open intimidation and bullying of our elected representatives? Seems unlikely. Will the police respond by properly protecting them? Not a chance. Will the BBC mend their ways and stop pandering to genocidal thugs. No way.
What will happen is that a lot of quite harmless people will get banged up for pointing out that water flows downhill.
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
But nevertheless, there is something almost touching about Conservative MPs at this stage of their lifecycle, having so utterly failed over 14 years to legislate in a way that even slightly constricts the power of the hyper-progressive authoritarian Left, now fussing over the definition of extremism, in the hope of finally putting an end to all the nastiness.
Authoritarian moves to suppress lefties = good.
Authoritarian moves to suppress conservatives = bad.
Take this one straight to the Ministry of Truth.
Authoritarian moves to suppress conservatives = good.
Authoritarian moves to suppress lefties = bad.
Fixed it for you, you’re welcome!
Jeremy Bray
2 months ago
Completely idiotic definition. Every authoritarian government would be delighted to bang up its opponents for “actions that undermine ‘take your pick of authoritarian countries’ values”.
Such a definition is so wide in scope as to enable biased interpretations to reign.
Anyone who proposes this certainly doesn’t share my conservative values.
I am happy with classic liberal values not so happy with authoritarian progressive “liberal” values, and I suspect it is the latter that would be enforced. I can see speaking out against DEI and trans ideology becoming an action that undermines British values even if those values are newly minted.
Adrian Smith
2 months ago
The problem is the use of or threats of violence, which is already illegal. Fine if you want to make politically motivated violence a more serious crime than violence for the sake of violence, in the same way that racially motivated violence is deemed more serious. Why don’t we strengthen the tools we have for dealing with what is already illegal rather than distracting attention and diverting resources by widening the field of what those resources have to deal with.
The Economist had a good piece on this a month or so ago. Governments are just keen to be seen to be doing something so push through new laws which already exist in some other form and will be just as ineffective.
Albireo Double
2 months ago
“Anything we wish to do is legal, unless it is forbidden by law”. Remember that? It used to be our guiding principle in this country. Not long ago…
We have too much law, not too little. And the reason for this is that politicians love making laws, as it’s about the only tangible “legacy” that they think they can leave.
There should be a complete moratorium on the creation of any new law for some years now, while we overhaul what we have and rescind at least half of it.
Politicians might (and certainly should) realise that if they want to leave a legacy, it should be societal. A measure of how they preserved the good in our society – and no other measure. And particularly not – what “they changed”.
Change is important. but we have completely forgotten how to do it. And we entrust it to politicians, who are no longer trustworthy. We should have electronic nationwide mini-referendums on all significant debates in this country. We should run our country’s decision-making as a population, based on numerical majorities. Not on transient political whims.
William Cameron
2 months ago
Please not more ambiguous law.
We have laws that stop people preaching hate sedition etc- if preachers are spouting this stuff record it arrest them and charge them.
Our problem isnt lack of laws. It’s lack of law enforcement.
Daniel Lee
2 months ago
You guys don’t have a first amendment protecting speech and it really shows.
Expect Gove’s stupid plan to lead to a mass-crackdown by Labour on those opposed to their Racial Equality Act Bill which they will bring in early 2025. Not a single one of England’s hundreds of thousands of Islamists will be prosecuted under this amended definition.
Instead it will be wielded against a few hundred known right wingers and the chilling effect will crush resistance to a new regime of racial grifting in public procurement. The Tories, as ever, are helping to doom themselves. Funny how Gove always seems to be there holding the knife.
I predict that GB News will be closed down within three months of Labour’s victory.
It will be replaced by Islamic News
“Instead it will be wielded against a few hundred known right wingers“
You are, I’m afraid, wrong. It will be wielded against anybody and everybody with the ‘wrong’ opinion (cowing the remainder into submission), and especially those who previously considers themselves ‘correct’ (isn’t that right TERFS ?). Basically, anyone, and everyone, who veers from the approved path, can and will be labelled as ‘far right’ (increasingly meaningless) and be fair game for online attack dogs or the authorities.
The world, as we know it, may not end, but gradually, maybe imperceptibly, what seemed perfectly normal today, or yesterday (Friends/Yes Minister etc) will be signs of unhealthy deviance, tantamount to the worst excess of the ‘real’ far right.
Anyone who vocally disagrees wilh anglophobia will be criminalised
Will this new ‘definition’ prevent grifters like Chris Packham from advocating the open intimidation and bullying of our elected representatives? Seems unlikely. Will the police respond by properly protecting them? Not a chance. Will the BBC mend their ways and stop pandering to genocidal thugs. No way.
What will happen is that a lot of quite harmless people will get banged up for pointing out that water flows downhill.
Authoritarian moves to suppress lefties = good.
Authoritarian moves to suppress conservatives = bad.
Take this one straight to the Ministry of Truth.
Authoritarian moves to suppress conservatives = good.
Authoritarian moves to suppress lefties = bad.
Fixed it for you, you’re welcome!
Completely idiotic definition. Every authoritarian government would be delighted to bang up its opponents for “actions that undermine ‘take your pick of authoritarian countries’ values”.
Such a definition is so wide in scope as to enable biased interpretations to reign.
Anyone who proposes this certainly doesn’t share my conservative values.
Those are liberal values not conservative ones.
I am happy with classic liberal values not so happy with authoritarian progressive “liberal” values, and I suspect it is the latter that would be enforced. I can see speaking out against DEI and trans ideology becoming an action that undermines British values even if those values are newly minted.
The problem is the use of or threats of violence, which is already illegal. Fine if you want to make politically motivated violence a more serious crime than violence for the sake of violence, in the same way that racially motivated violence is deemed more serious. Why don’t we strengthen the tools we have for dealing with what is already illegal rather than distracting attention and diverting resources by widening the field of what those resources have to deal with.
The Economist had a good piece on this a month or so ago. Governments are just keen to be seen to be doing something so push through new laws which already exist in some other form and will be just as ineffective.
“Anything we wish to do is legal, unless it is forbidden by law”. Remember that? It used to be our guiding principle in this country. Not long ago…
We have too much law, not too little. And the reason for this is that politicians love making laws, as it’s about the only tangible “legacy” that they think they can leave.
There should be a complete moratorium on the creation of any new law for some years now, while we overhaul what we have and rescind at least half of it.
Politicians might (and certainly should) realise that if they want to leave a legacy, it should be societal. A measure of how they preserved the good in our society – and no other measure. And particularly not – what “they changed”.
Change is important. but we have completely forgotten how to do it. And we entrust it to politicians, who are no longer trustworthy. We should have electronic nationwide mini-referendums on all significant debates in this country. We should run our country’s decision-making as a population, based on numerical majorities. Not on transient political whims.
Please not more ambiguous law.
We have laws that stop people preaching hate sedition etc- if preachers are spouting this stuff record it arrest them and charge them.
Our problem isnt lack of laws. It’s lack of law enforcement.
You guys don’t have a first amendment protecting speech and it really shows.