The Government has today announced a new definition of “extremism” as follows:

“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).

The new definition is narrower and more precise than the 2011 Prevent definition, which did not provide the detail we now need to assess and identify extremism. This new definition helps clearly articulate how extremism is evidenced through the public behaviour of extremists that advance their violent, hateful or intolerant aims.”

The previous definition was “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”.

The announcement cause consternation even in advance of its publication. In a joint statement on 12 March, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York warned the Government in advance of its announcement of the new definition that it risked “disproportionately targeting Muslim communities”:

“In recent months, we have continued to witness growing division between different communities in this country – both in our towns and cities and online. Many of our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters have spoken about feeling unsafe while simply walking down the street, or attending their places of work and worship. These depressing developments not only undermine the cohesion of our society, but also threaten our country’s rich diversity that should be so highly prized in 21st century Britain.

How our leaders respond to this is far too important for a new definition of extremism to be its cure. Instead of providing clarity or striking a conciliatory tone, we think labelling a multi-faceted problem as hateful extremism may instead vilify the wrong people and risk yet more division. The new definition being proposed not only inadvertently threatens freedom of speech, but also the right to worship and peaceful protest – things that have been hard won and form the fabric of a civilised society. Crucially, it risks disproportionately targeting Muslim communities, who are already experiencing rising levels of hate and abuse.

We are concerned – like so many others – by its implications for public life. We join calls for the Government to reconsider its approach and instead have a broad-based conversation with all those who it will affect. The Church of England would be very willing to fulfil part of its historic role by sharing in facilitating that conversation. The UK has a proud history of welcoming people from all walks of life and celebrating diversity. We are a community of communities. Our leaders should cherish and promote that – and pursue policies that bring us together, not risk driving us apart.”.

In addition, three former Conservative Home Secretaries – Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd – were among a dozen signatories to an open letter which urged cross-party consensus on any new definition:

“Keeping citizens safe is the first responsibility of government. So dealing with extremism is essential given the real threats from Islamist extremists, far right extremists and others. It requires as broad a consensus as possible if we are to be successful in marginalising and defeating it. In the run up to a general election it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short term tactical advantage.

We urge the Labour Party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election. Our country is most effective in tackling extremism when it does it together.”