When I first read about this in the Independent I thought they must have gotten something wrong. But no, The Intercept and the Guardian heard the same words.

This actually seems to be David Cameron's stance on what a democracy should look like:

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.'

That's right, being within your rights to do something is no longer an excuse for doing it. To enforce this outrageous attack on democracy you obviously would need to control what people think, or rather which kind of opinion can even spread and thus (to an extent) which kind of thoughts can form in your subordinates' citizens' minds. Here you go:

The aim is to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on the grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.

They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print

Tory Home Secretary Theresa May, in context of what would constitute "extremism" only talks about people who "undermine our British values" and being "together as one society, One Nation."

Greenwald:

I personally believe this was all more lyrical in its original German

And I agree. Also, some of the politicians giving the original speeches had much more charisma... But the point is: Germany learned from this experience. So even if it obviously doesn't apply in the UK, let's have a look at that. The German constitution contains an unamendable paragraph that deals with the very issue Cameron and his thugs claim to address: "overthrowing democracy":

All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.

That's right: Cameron's plan, if implemented, could easily fall under Germany's right to resistance and vice versa! A citizen fighting for their right to free expression could easily be labelled an extremist and faced with who knows what kind of treatment (David Miranda might have a word to say about that) because fundamentally disagreeing with your government is supposedly the most unbritish thing one could do. But look at the issue from the other direction, the one expressed in the German constitution, and you get the complete opposite. The UK government wants to...

• outlaw opinions - even those expressed in a civil, nonviolent manner - and brand those expressing them "extremists". Which opinions? Unbritish ones!
• make submission to the police of virtually any content before publication mandatory (But "only" for people who have drawn attention before. And remember, the UK does not protect the freedom of the press in their constitution)
• reintroduce laws for data retention under the "Snoopers' Charter". Because, how else would epople "draw attention"? Due process or what?

I am not a lawyer, but I am German. And funnily, that gives me an edge here for once. After years of history lessons in highschool, criminalizing "unbritish" behaviour and opinions for me is a huge red flag in terms of "overthrowing democracy".
But when is it really okay to conclude that the government has indeed set out to abolish democracy? Where is the red line?
There is one more caveat with the right to resistance: you need to have used all other remedies. When can you claim to have used the remedies available to you?

Take this article (in German, sorry) by Sascha Lobo, incidentally also from yesterday. Lobo complains (IMHO rightfully) that all the free press, all the evidence against our politicians is worthless if people can not be mobilized to vote those politicians out of office. When the people disagreeing with the current government see no alternatives, when they are so disillusioned with politics as a whole that they see no point in trying to change anything, then the best evidence of even criminal actions by our government and against us will remain without consequence. The "fourth estate" becomes an exercise in futility. And also, a population that cannot be bothered to vote loses its right to resistance. You could have voted your tyrants out of power you lazy bums!

But in the case of the UK, the plans are published just days after the election. By the time of the next election, publicly fighting such core British values as internet, media and thought censorship might already be illegal. And those opposing the law now? Well, they are against a law aiming to catch "those who spread or incite hatred on the grounds of gender, race or religion". They should probably submit their social media posts to the police for good measure. So where's the remedy?

Let's hope people won't have to remember where those masks came from.