Last week, Community Secretary Michael Gove presented a new definition of extremism in the British Parliament, sending ripples of concern through Muslim communities in the UK and beyond. This revised definition significantly broadens the scope of extremism, raising serious questions about its impact on freedom of expression and the rights of minorities. The new definition states “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)”. In contrast to the 2011 definition, which primarily focused on violent actions against British values, the new definition expands to include any promotion of ideologies deemed contrary to British values, regardless of whether they involve violence. This shift from action to ideology represents a concerning departure from democratic principles. Under this new definition, individuals or organizations expressing views contrary to British values risk being labeled as extremists and face severe repercussions, including being banned from government interactions and funding. While the government justifies this as a response to rising extremism, particularly in the wake of global events like pro-Palestinian protests, it risks unfairly targeting Muslim communities. By linking extremism to specific political ideologies and events in the Middle East, the government perpetuates biases against Muslims. Gove’s speech in Parliament outlined a comprehensive policy aimed at tackling extremism, but the implications of this approach extend far beyond its initial scope. By linking extremism to specific political ideologies and events in the Middle East, the government perpetuates biases against Muslims and threatens the multicultural fabric of British society. Moreover, the lack of recourse for those accused of extremism compounds these concerns. Without the ability to appeal government decisions, individuals and organizations risk being unfairly marginalized, undermining the very principles of democracy the government purports to protect. The genesis of this new definition, as cited by Gove, underscores its problematic nature. By framing it as a response to specific events in the Middle East, the government risks conflating legitimate political expression with extremism, further marginalizing Muslim communities. Furthermore, the potential impact of this policy extends beyond British borders, affecting regions with historical ties to British colonialism and exacerbating tensions in non-Muslim-majority countries. As right-wing movements gain momentum across Europe, Muslims face increased discrimination and prejudice, further isolating communities already marginalized by society. In response to Gove’s speech, Muslim civil society, led by the Muslim Council of Britain, has mobilized to challenge the government’s flawed extremism strategy. However, broader international action is necessary to address the root causes of this discriminatory policy. Muslim-majority countries and influential allies must unite to condemn this infringement on democratic values and advocate for a more inclusive approach to countering extremism. Ultimately, Britain’s new extremism definition poses a grave threat to democratic principles and multiculturalism. Voices from all corners of society must unite to oppose this regressive policy and uphold the rights and freedoms of all citizens, regardless of their beliefs or backgrounds. The writer is a law lecturer at Curtin University and Tweets @AbdullahFazi.