site stats

Ministers 'struggle to define extremism'


Policemen with gunsPicture copyright
PA

The Government should reconsider its technique on fighting extremism because it risks making the situation worse, a parliamentary workforce has stated.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights mentioned there used to be presently no useable felony definition of extremism.

In a report, it urged ministers to “tread sparsely” when looking to define extremism because it risked undermining members of the family with Muslim communities.

a house Place Of Job spokesman said fighting extremism used to be “vitally vital”.

Excellent members of the family with Muslim communities had been The Federal Government’s “most precious asset” in fighting terrorism inspired through so-referred to as Islamic State, the committee said.

The staff of MPs and friends stressed the need to have a transparent big difference between extremism and non secular conservatism.

‘I’m now not an extremist’

Committee chairwoman Harriet Harman instructed BBC Radio Four’s As Of Late programme The Government had previously stated extremism comprises “intolerance or now not respecting the spiritual views or beliefs of others”.

“But The issue with that is – once more it’s the definition – for instance, I Do Not admire religions that regard women as subservient, I Do Not tolerate the views or beliefs of people who suppose that homosexuality is a sin, however I Am clearly now not an extremist on the path to violence.

“To have draconian orders – breach of which is a criminal offence – with out with the ability to describe the issue that you’re trying to put these orders in opposition to, is an issue.”

Picture caption

Labour’s Ms Harman said defining extremism was an issue

The committee also entreated a overview of The Federal Government’s current Stop counter-extremism strategy, which is designed to stop individuals from turning into radicalised.

Plans for a Counter-Extremism Invoice have been first announced in 2015 and were incorporated within the Queen’s Speech in May, However The committee stated the proposals gave the impression to have stalled and even long gone backwards.

The file said there was settlement that tackling terrorism used to be a precedence, but now not on how one can fight extremism.

On proposed measures to deal with spiritual conservatism, the committee said these needed to be balanced with the correct to freedom of speech.

The Federal Government, it added, must purpose “to deal with extremism that leads to violence”.

‘Drive a wedge’

New rules posed two issues, said the committee – “both it’s going to focal point on Muslims, be viewed as discriminatory and Force a wedge between communities, or it could function indiscriminately and may be used in opposition to any groups who espouse conservative non secular views”.

a home Office spokeswoman mentioned: “Extremism causes terrorism and broader social harms including hate crime, honour-based violence and discrimination.

“For This Reason we printed a counter-extremism strategy which confronts all sorts of extremist ideology head-on, helps mainstream voices, and builds more suitable and more cohesive communities.

“This vast counter-extremism agenda is distinctive and complementary to our Prevent programme which safeguards those who could also be vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.”



Supply hyperlink

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » appearance » Widgets » and move a widget into Advertise Widget Zone