So, the UK has a new definition of extremism and debate ranges as to whether it helps or hinders protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion. However, what also needs to be considered is the effect that this will have on Christians and other minorities living in some of the most repressive countries in the world – whose governments are also now using “extremism laws” to retain their hold on power.

Our heritage of freedom

One of the problems in this debate is that as the UK as a nation has largely forgotten that values such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech primarily developed in the UK and other countries of the English-speaking world. In fact, they largely developed through the repeal of repressive laws such as ‘Test Acts’ which sought to exclude from the public arena those who did not hold to the politically dominant belief system of the day. ‘Non-Conformists’ – and we still have a few of those today (!) - were excluded not just from public offices such as being a member of parliament, mayor or magistrate, but also from professions such as school teaching.

When it comes free speech – the importance of this history was emphasised twenty-five years ago in the UK High Court. Lord Justice Sedley in granting the appeal of Alison Redmond Bate – possibly the first street preacher to be arrested in the twentieth century, stated:

“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having... We in this country continue to owe a debt to the jury which in 1670 refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy.”

The key phrase of course was, “provided it does not tend to provoke violence.” You can say what you like provided it doesn’t provoke violence – at least you could!

To be fair there has been a bit of a slide away from that in recent years. The repeated attempts to define ‘Islamophobia’ so as to proscribe not merely hatred against Muslims (i.e. people), but also any criticism of Islam (a belief system), are in effect an attempt to introduce an Islamic blasphemy law in all but name.

The previous definition of extremism

However. what was good about the UK’s previous definition of extremism was that it defined extremism as active or vocal opposition to historic British values. The government’s 2015 counter extremism strategy gave as examples of those values the rule of law, democracy, individual liberty, and freedom of religion.

What was particularly important, was that to qualify as one of those “fundamental values” something had to meet all of three specific criteria. 1. have evolved over centuries – so excluding recent fads; 2. be supported and shared by the overwhelming majority of the population; and 3) be underpinned by our most important local and national institutions. That provided a significant level of protection for minority or other beliefs which differ from the current politically dominant orthodoxy, such as those who disagree with abortion or the latest trends in gender ideology.

The previous definition also provided a significant level of protection to Muslims. It had replaced an earlier definition brought in after 9/11 by Tony Blair’s government which had primarily focused on Islamic extremism and defined it in relation to “moderate Islam”. As the latter was a somewhat nebulous concept this not only failed to protect ordinary Muslims, but also allowed the government to engage with some fairly extreme Islamic groups who wanted to introduce “partial shari’a” into the UK - after all you could always find a group which was even more extreme than them!

The new definition of extremism

What the UK government’s new definition of extremism does is delete some of the strongest aspects of the previous definition such as its definition of British values as those which had evolved over the centuries. Instead, it defines extremism as:

“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…”

So, instead of free speech allowing you to say anything you like – provided, in Lord Sedley’s words, “it does not tend to provoke violence”, now even “intolerance” of the rights and freedoms of others is defined as extremism.

That raises two deeply concerning questions. First, who defines what is meant by “intolerance”? Tolerance used to mean, tolerating the expression of beliefs that you fundamentally disagreed with. Now it is uncomfortably common to see various public sector bodies understanding it to mean requiring employees or others to affirm a particular set of ideological or philosophical beliefs. That is something which in effect risks turning the clock back on freedom of religion or belief more than two centuries to the era of the Test Acts. It’s worth remembering that the only countries today which still have ‘Test Acts’ are Islamic ones.

The second question is what actually are the “fundamental rights and freedoms of others”. The failure to define these leaves it wide open to abuse. It simply won’t do to say that these are “human rights” – all sorts of things are now being claimed as human rights. Yale Professor Nicholas Wolterstorff has helpfully suggested the current use of that term covers three distinct categories: First, genuine human rights that by definition apply to all human beings; Secondly, natural rights – such as the right of a heterosexual couple to conceive children; and thirdly, socially conferred rights – where a law has been passed conferring a right to something for some types of people.

The danger of the new definition of extremism’s undefined reference to “rights and freedoms of others” is that merely expressing disagreement with a law that has been passed, say for example, on abortion or gender identity – or perhaps in the future Islamophobia - could be claimed to be “extremism”.

International concerns

Which brings us to the impact that this could have on freedom of religion around the world.

There are two major issues of concern here. The first, is that the new UK definition of extremism appears to have been drawn up without any understanding of how the term “extremism” has been used around the world since 9/11. Whilst its use in some countries has been relatively benign, in the less tolerant parts of the world it has been used as a tool of religious persecution. The former Communist countries of Central Asia illustrate the problem well. All have authoritarian governments which have sought to deal with Islamist groups opposed to them with vaguely worded laws against “extremism”. However, these laws are also used to arrest Christians and anyone else who is deemed a threat to the government’s portrayal of national unity.

For example, six months ago, the US State Department’s Commission on International Religious Freedom published a report stating that under Kyrgyzstan’s vaguely worded extremism law

“religious groups have been banned as ‘extremist’ organizations and alleged members of these organizations targeted for their peaceful religious activities.”

Those groups which are now deemed to be “extremist” in Kyrgyzstan include not just radical Islamist groups, but also Evangelical Christians, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Similarly in Tajikistan, last year Nazila Ghanea, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief described the situation there as falling “alarmingly short of the scope of guarantees in international human rights law” – with the government’s focus on tackling extremism being the primary driving force behind those violations.

Tajikistan’s 2019 “Extremism law” does not simply punish those whose religious activities incite violence, but also those who in a phrase somewhat reminiscent of the UK government’s new definition of extremism, either directly or indirectly harm the “rights and freedoms” of others, such as by distributing material deemed to be “extremist”. What actually counts as “extremism” is decided by Tajikistan’s authoritarian government who have labelled opposition parties as “extremist” in order to ban them from standing for election, and in 2022 announced that no new Protestant churches would be registered – effectively banning them. One could go on to describe similar situations in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Up till now the UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office has often been quite good as quietly challenging some of the more repressive governments like these. But, with the new definition of extremism – those governments are simply going to turn round and say – “but your definition of extremism is very similar to ours!”

The way forward

However, what the UK government could do which would have a lasting positive impact on human rights around the world is to actually define what those “freedoms” are that the new definition of extremism refers to.

Rather, than coming up with a list that reflects the latest political virtues, it could commission a committee of eminent historians and other experts to come up with a definitive list of what those “freedoms” are which have developed over the centuries in what is now the UK and other countries of the English speaking world.

At the Lindisfarne Centre for the Study of Christian Persecution we have already done that for Freedom of Religion, listing 10 aspects of Freedom of Religion or Belief which historically developed in the countries of the English-speaking world:

1.   Freedom of the church from state interference, including freedom to interpret scripture without government interference.

2.       Freedom to translate and own scripture in the vernacular and read it publicly.

3.       Freedom of worship.

4.       Freedom from being required to act against one’s beliefs.

5.       Freedom to establish places of worship.

6.       Freedom to preach and try to convince others of the truth of one’s beliefs.

7.       Freedom to choose or change one’s faith.

8.       Freedom from being required to affirm a particular worldview i.e. religious or philosophical beliefs, in order to hold public office, enter various professions or study at university (repeal of ‘Test Acts’).

9.       Freedom of parents to educate children according to their own beliefs.

10.   Freedom to criticise the religious or philosophical beliefs of others (absence of blasphemy law).

We believe these provide a far more specific measure to assess the extent of freedom of religion around the world, than the somewhat vague and generalised statements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They also empower those, often western-educated, leaders in Islamic countries who do what to slowly make changes, by publicly spelling out what specific aspects of freedom of religion or belief their country needs to improve.

If the UK government did this for a wider range of freedoms such as, for example, freedom of speech and academic freedom, freedom of the press etc it would set a standard which the rest of the world could be challenged to uphold. This is an opportunity for the UK government to make a lasting impact for good on the world – and one that it should grasp.