They’ve already used existing “anti-extremist” laws to target Labour, so it looks like everyone but Tories are included.
The US court system has a notion of strict scrutinywhich it uses to review laws that abridge fundamental rights.
To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a “compelling governmental interest,” and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.
Now, the UK isn’t the US, and the notion of having primary legislation conform to a superior body of law may be somewhat alien (especially in light of plans to withdraw from the ECHR Council of Europe, but the phrases “narrowly tailored” and “compelling governmental interest” do strike me as appropriate criteria to judge any such legislation. Obviouslly, the government has a compelling interest in stopping the idiots such as those who murdered Lee Rigby and those who carried out the 7/7 bombings, and those who recieve training from the “Islamic State”.
The question is whether the law is narrowly tailored to serve those interests, and not less compelling ones in the meantime. And without seeing the legislation, no one can really judge.
As for targeting Labourites, well, that would be an argument against “narrow tailoring” wouldn’t it? Please provide a cite.
Good legislation in this area might be possible, but a bad bill seems inevitable.
