Christians could possibly be branded extremists under recent ‘over-broad’ definition

Christian organisations could possibly be caught out under the federal government’s recent extremism definition, a charity has warned. 

Christian policy group CARE said that the brand new definition was “over-broad” and would put in danger groups that make “countercultural statements” on issues “blacklisted by officials who’ve a political agenda”. 

The definition is aimed toward extremist and Far-Right groups but critics have warned of a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech.

The government calls extremism “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that goals to: negate or destroy the elemental rights and freedoms of others; or undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”. 

Ross Hendry, CEO of CARE, said that while it was right to deal with extremism, the brand new definition risks undermining civil liberties.

“Extremism is an actual threat to our society. The values of militant Islamists and much right groups are completely contrary to our democratic system and the Christian worldview. It is totally right that the spreading of lies, and racial and non secular hatred is confronted,” he said. 

“At the identical time, the federal government’s recent extremism definition should be closely scrutinised. Policies of this sort are notoriously fraught. There is all the time a danger that in attempting to catch genuinely harmful behaviour, wider civil liberties are disproportionately undermined.”

Hendry warned that terms like ‘hatred’ and ‘intolerance’ could possibly be interpreted “very widely” and potentially catch out mainstream Christian groups over their views on issues like abortion, sexuality and transgender ideology. 

“Whilst the brand new definition won’t have statutory force, the federal government will punish groups and publish a blacklist for all to see. There is a risk that campaigning individuals inside government could unfairly seek to have certain groups proscribed for holding ‘the fallacious beliefs’,” he said.

“The government’s intentions are good, but its approach is problematic. There are good mechanisms in place to take care of dangerous groups and individuals. The police have to apply existing laws effectively, and consistently. We’d urge the federal government to deal with this key issue.”