What are EDOs?
Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) will restrict the activities of people the Government thinks are engaged in ‘extreme activities’ – even if they have not broken the law.
Extremism Disruption Orders will go “beyond terrorism” and “eliminate extremism in all its forms”.
EDOs will also apply to “venues and facilitators” that are deemed to help extremists.
These proposals have been criticised by the media, lawyers, police officers and security experts, who have warned that innocent people will fall foul of the law for merely holding unpopular, traditional or challenging views.
It appears likely that an individual could face prosecution and a possible jail sentence for breaching the EDOs conditions.Join the campaign
The efforts to control extremism and limit protest by those caught by too wide a definition may undermine the very rights and British values you seek to protect
The government has created an impossible bind for itself: in the name of protecting our values, it’s now seeking to undermine the most fundamental value of all for democracy – freedom of expression. This is a deeply misguided policy that will not only stigmatise minorities, it will criminalise political speech across society and introduce a culture of caution
I have a serious problem with action to drive underground people who are described as ‘extremists’, which could be applied to people with a whole range of views.
the Conservatives have just introduced thoughtpolicing, the punishment of people not for what they do but for what they *say*
Extremism Disruption Orders could be a disaster area for people from all the mainstream religions and none.
In the current climate, there is a real risk that EDOs will be used to clamp down on legitimate expressions of dissent.
It makes an absolute mockery, a nonsense, of the very values that we’re trying to defend.
While it is absolutely right that the government wants to engage with and challenge extremist ideas, remember what those ideas are about...Those ideas are about attacks on civil liberties so it seems to us deeply ironic that the government's response is to restrict our civil liberties which is exactly what these proposals would entail.
Without precise legislative definitions, deciding what are ‘harmful activities of extremist individuals who spread hate’ is subjective and therefore open to abuse now or by any future authoritarian government.
The very definition—the heart—of a free, liberal society is that we should be free to offend each other, and that is what is at stake in this new debate.
One can imagine already the powers being used against harmless evangelical street preachers or the like, out of misplaced zeal and a desire to demonstrate that they are not directed against one religion alone.
Restricting free speech, and forcing those who hold views inimical to our own into the shadows, is an authoritarian act that will only serve to further alienate those susceptible to extremist views.
The Home Office will soon, for the first time, assume responsibility for a new counter-extremism strategy that goes beyond terrorism. It will aim to undermine and eliminate extremism in all its forms – not just Islamist extremism – and it will aim to build up society to identify extremism, confront it, challenge it and defeat it.