We are living through an increasingly polarised period, marked by rising hostility towards minorities and the spread of divisive narratives across politics, parts of the mainstream media, and online platforms. This climate has real-world consequences.
During Ramadan, we saw a disturbing rise in attacks on places of worship, including an incident last month when two armed men entered Manchester Central Mosque while it was full of worshippers. Had they not been apprehended by brave volunteers, the outcome could have been devastating. Against this backdrop, the foundations of social cohesion are under serious strain.
Expanding regulatory powers
Last week, the government published its social cohesion strategy, Protecting What Matters, setting out plans to tackle extremism and strengthen cohesion across the United Kingdom. Among the proposals is an expansion of the Charity Commission’s powers, including the ability to suspend trustees convicted of hate crimes and shut down charities that abuse their status to promote hate.
At first glance, these measures may seem both necessary and proportionate. Charities play a vital role in addressing society’s most pressing challenges and bringing communities together; they must never be misused as vehicles for division.
However, on closer examination, these proposals warrant careful scrutiny. Without adequate safeguards, such powers risk being used to curb legitimate civil society activity.
As a sector, we must also look inward. Upholding the highest standards of governance is not merely procedural; it is essential to building and maintaining public trust. Measures such as trustee identity verification and the digitisation of charity accounts are constructive steps that can strengthen transparency and accountability across the sector.
However, proposals to extend the commission’s ability to remove trustees or strip organisations of their charitable status have been met with concern, particularly against the backdrop of a shrinking civic space.
Unclear language creates risk
There must, of course, be zero tolerance for hate or unlawful conduct. In the context of rising anti-Muslim hatred and antisemitism, the government is right to prioritise tackling hate crime.
Recent statistics show that almost half of all religiously motivated hate crime is directed at Muslims. Measures to increase security funding for places of worship and invest in programmes addressing anti-Muslim hate are therefore both necessary and welcome.
Some in the sector recognise that, as Lisa Nandy has noted, charities can be hijacked by individuals who bring the sector into disrepute, and that such abuses must be addressed.
But without clear definitions and robust safeguards, vague terminology risks becoming a tool to suppress legitimate civil society voices.
Chilling effect
Muslim-led, environmental, and racial justice organisations already face disproportionate scrutiny. They are frequently misrepresented by some politicians, commentators, and so-called think tanks, and subjected to heightened regulatory pressure and reputational attacks.
At best, this marginalises diverse voices; at worst, it poses an existential threat to organisations advocating for systemic change. In the past, there have also been instances where the commission has been perceived as being used disproportionately against specific community organisations, further eroding trust. Left unchecked, this trend could spread further across civil society.
Expanding the commission’s powers risks deepening this chilling effect, particularly if such powers are applied inconsistently or weaponised against lawful advocacy.
The proposals introduce broader and more ambiguous grounds on which organisations could be reported for alleged extremism, a concern compounded by plans to accelerate regulatory decision-making. Faced with such uncertainty, charities may self-censor to avoid severe consequences: loss of funding, staff turnover, trustee disqualification, or even closure.
Any expansion of these powers must therefore be accompanied by meaningful consultation with civil society. It is essential to assess whether existing legislation is already sufficient and to ensure that new measures do not erode democratic principles by constraining legitimate advocacy and political engagement. Where reforms are introduced, they must include clear safeguards and be applied proportionately in both scope and practice.
Protection of democratic rights
Strengthening social cohesion cannot come at the expense of the civic freedoms that sustain it. The government’s challenge is not only to act, but to act with precision, protecting communities from harm while safeguarding the space for civil society to speak, challenge, and contribute.
Civil society has long played a vital role in holding power to account and driving meaningful change. Any credible social cohesion strategy must therefore prioritise the protection of democratic rights, the bridging of societal divides, and support for communities that feel left behind. Only then can we build a society in which people feel safe, respected, and truly included.
