Ministers have dismissed a Home Office report recommending a broader definition of extremism, drawing both praise and criticism for their decision. The proposal suggested expanding the scope of extremism to encompass potentially violent environmentalists, conspiracy theorists, extreme misogynists, and left-wing anarchists. Parts of the report, commissioned last summer by then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, were leaked to the Policy Exchange think tank, which criticized the recommendations.
Home Office Minister Dan Jarvis firmly rejected the report’s advice, stating, “Islamist extremism followed by far-right extremism are the biggest threats we face.” He emphasized the government’s focus on these two dominant forms of extremism.
The proposal aimed to shift the government’s counter-extremism strategy from targeting ideologies to focusing on “behaviours of concern.” According to the leaked findings, these behaviors included spreading misinformation, fascination with violence, promoting misogyny, and participating in extremist online subcultures like the “manosphere.” Critics of the report argue these activities are already addressed under existing laws and frameworks.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak acknowledged the evolving nature of terrorism in the UK, noting that while previous threats involved organized groups with clear political motives, recent acts of violence have been carried out by “loners, misfits, [and] young men in their bedroom.” Addressing the aftermath of the Southport attacks, which saw three young girls murdered and subsequent riots across the country, Sunak stated, “Terrorism has changed, and a review will be carried out into our entire counter-extremist system.”
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp warned against diluting the focus on ideologically driven threats, stating, “By extending the definition of extremism so widely, the government risks losing focus on ideologically motivated terrorists who pose the most risk to life.” He added that criminal behavior not tied to ideology should be addressed through law enforcement and other agencies.
The review, conducted by Home Office officials at Cooper’s request, was designed to shape a new counter-extremism strategy that considered online and offline threats beyond Islamist and far-right extremism. However, government sources have criticized the report, with some calling its recommendations “shocking.” Others questioned the decision to commission the review internally rather than relying on external experts.
Former government adviser Danny Shaw supported the report’s behavioral approach, arguing that it could have prevented cases like that of Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer, who slipped through the cracks of the Prevent program due to a narrow definition of extremism. Shaw stated, “That approach was not taken in the case of Axel Rudakubana because he didn’t fit a definition that meant he could have intervention.”
Nick Aldworth, a former senior counter-terrorism officer, raised concerns about resource allocation, cautioning, “If you have a definition or legislation that can’t easily be policed, it is probably not worth doing.”
Authors of the Policy Exchange report, Andrew Gilligan and Paul Stott, criticized the Home Office findings, claiming they “run in the wrong direction.” They warned that expanding the definition of extremism would overwhelm security services and pose risks to free speech.
The government’s rejection of the recommendations has sparked intense debate, with ministers standing by their commitment to prioritize threats posed by Islamist and far-right extremism. While the Home Office has stated that the report’s review has “concluded,” it continues to refine its counter-extremism strategies.
About Author
Leave a Reply