Groups to be investigated under a new definition of extremism, which he says will mean the government can express more clearly than ever who poses a risk to britain. Some of the risk to britain. Some of the groups included are alleged to have islamist views , with others have islamist views, with others described as neo nazi. Todays new extremism definition will be used to assess whether some groups should be marginalised or blocked from public funding. But blocked from public funding. But michael gove insists its not about silencing those with private and peaceful beliefs. We have to be clear eyed about the threat we face, precise about where that threat comes from and rigorous in defending our democracy. That defending our democracy. That means upholding freedom of expression, religion and belief. When they are threatened, facing down harassment and hate support the communities facing the greatest challenge from extremist activity and ensuring this house and this country are safe, free and united and. And some breaking news in the last half hour. Great yarmouth mp Brandon Lewis has announced he is standing down as a candidate at the next general election. In a statement posted election. In a statement posted on x, the former Northern Ireland secretary said it is not a decision taken easily as it has been the greatest honour of my life to represent the people of Great Yarmouth in parliament. In other news, russia has been accused of disrupting the gps signal on the defence secretarys plane en route to poland. The incident occurred as the raf jet flew close to the edge of kaliningrad. Gps navigation and Internet Access was lost for around 30 minutes dunng was lost for around 30 minutes during the flight, but the pilots have confirmed the aircraft was never at risk. The incident happened as grant shapps visited british troops participating in nato exercises in poland. Scotlands former in poland. Scotlands former Health Secretary has been found to have breached the code of conduct after racking up £11,000 bills on his parliamentary ipad. Michael matheson quit his role in the wake of the scandal over his data roaming charges, which happened during a holiday in morocco. He later said that his morocco. He later said that his teenage sons used the device to watch football, and mps are getting a pay rise with an inflation busting 5. 5 boost pushing salaries to around £91,000. It means pay will increase by more than £4,700 next year, or almost £400 extra each month. The westminster watchdog says its in line with an award for senior Civil Servants, but its above inflation, which is just 4. And for the latest stories, sign up to gb news alerts by scanning the qr code on your screen or go to gb news. Com slash alerts. Good evening. Well michael good evening. Well michael gove today laying out a new definition of what is extremism. Lets hear what he had to say in the house of commons earlier on today. The proposed definition will hold that extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred intolerance that aims hatred or intolerance that aims to negate or destroy the fundamental, fundamental rights and of others or and freedoms of others or undermine, overturn or replace the uk system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights, or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve these results. Others to achieve these results. Well, i understand, you know, that organisations , whether that organisations, whether theyre extreme right or islamist, that are receiving government money, shouldnt receive government money if theyre spreading hatred and extremism. Thats part, extremism. Thats the one part, perhaps, this new definition. Perhaps, of this new definition. But i agree with but my concern is could this be open to abuse and what i think about it, you know , if you attempt to know, if you attempt to undermine, overturn or replace the uk system of liberal parliamentary democracy, well, you be branded an you could be branded an extremist , right. 7 and whilst extremist, right. 7 and whilst that wouldnt make you a criminal, because this will not go that the police are go into law that the police are going to enforce, it would take you of public well, you out of public life. Well, i was elected 25 years ago to the European Parliament on a ticket that said we should leave the European Union. My first day there, stephen he was there, sir stephen wall, he was there, sir stephen wall, he was the representative for the Foreign Office in the European Union , came to my office, sat union, came to my office, sat with the three of us from ukip that had been elected, and said, gentlemen, what are your intentions . It was clear he thought we were an extremist terrorist group. And thats the worry of this , even if worry with all of this, even if you create a permissive environment for others to achieve the result of undermining democracy or fundamental rights, that could mean that you perhaps couldnt debate many issues on gb news if some took those arguments and went too far with them. So my concern with all of this is that i think it has the potential to be abused by governments that want to shut down debate on issues that they dont like. I think it is. We were told the new definition would be less woolly, and yet , from what i can woolly, and yet, from what i can see, its completely and utterly open ended. Im sure that everybody on all sides of the political debate will argue that theyre being victimised. But i think this is open genuinely to a shutting down of free speech, maybe not by this government, but who knows what may come in the course of the following years. So tell me what you think is it open to abuse . Id love to get your views, please. Farage at gb news. Com now, one member of parliament who was subjected to extremism intolerable behaviour was of course tobias ellwood, the conservative member of parliament for bournemouth east, with a mob of, i think nearly 100 people for several hours turned up outside his house, shouting and chanting pretty hate filled messages. Tobias, welcome back on the programme. Two things really. One, id like to know what you think of this definition and whether you share my reservations about how it might be used in the future. And be used in the future. And secondly, i dont think this definition actually helps mps like you and would stop people gathering outside your house. Well, firstly, good evening and interesting you speaking about the European Union and reflecting back on that going down memory lane. You and i agree on many things and we both know that you and i disagree on many things , but we do it in a many things, but we do it in a way that allows us to disagree in a form thats, allows debate to continue. I dont hate you for what you believe in. You dont hate me. Were the art of disagreeing remains strong between us. And thats so important. But thats not the case in what weve seen over the last 3 or 4 months. And thats why theres this question thats being raised. Bigger question , being raised. Bigger question, fundamental question about who we are, what we stand for, what it means to be british and to live here, what binds us together, and how do we defend our open and tolerant way of life , our liberal parliamentary life, our liberal parliamentary democracy, as michael was democracy, as michael gove was just speaking about . And since those deadly attacks by hamas on the 7th of october, you know, tensions between communities within communities have been rising here. Weve seen rise in anti muslim and anti semitism, hatred, even the business of parliament has been affected. And as you just touched on, mps have been targeted as well. Its led to that big speech by the Prime Minister outside downing street on the 1st of march, where he wanted to address the spread of hate and division. And, of course, Michael Goves speech today. So this has a security implication. Thats what its about, because its through these extremist groups that freedom of expression is being suppressed. Actually being suppressed. Actually hatred is promoted. And in the worst cases , the worst cases, worst cases, the worst cases, youngsters with a scant under standing of the quran are recruited, radicalised, often online, to carry out deadly terrorist attacks. Here in the uk. So i would not want to see uk. So i would not want to see people like yourselves ever gaggedin people like yourselves ever gagged in any sense. But i hope you would agree. Theres also responsible use of freedom of speech. Thats something that we need to recognise. Tomas i absolutely agree with that. But the question is , does but the question is, does what is stated here . Does it do the job . I think this is a evolving conversation and the fact that were talking about it, nobody is on this list yet, as has been put forward by michael gove. Very interesting to see labours response as well today. They didnt, condemn it in any way. They largely agreed with it. I think this is an evolving conversation. Weve gone through this very, very difficult period and we have Big Questions to answer. I never thought that we would see legislation required to protect memorials because to protect War Memorials because nobody had ever challenged them before. Were now starting to do that because those behaviours, norms are being tested in all court forms of our of our society. And so important then, society. And so important then, therefore, we debate these things properly and as a nation decide what is right and what is wrong. Wrong. Okay, tobias, thank you very much indeed. An evolving conversation is the view of tobias ellwood. Im joined in the studio by Abdullah Al Andalusi , the co founder of the andalusi, the co founder of the muslim debate initiative. Welcome to the program. And toby young, the general secretary of the free speech union. Abdullah, there are some that say that this definition that michael gove put out today is aimed at muslim groups. Do you believe that to be the case or not . I think it was spurred on by the pro palestine protests that demanded a ceasefire against the massacre and plausibly a genocide against the gaza , genocide against the gaza, according to the International Court of justice. Many would disagree with that. Lets let the icj review it. Theyll review it better than you. But the issue is this that everyone seems to have a short memory. People dont remember the and the the Countryside Alliance and the anti hunting anti the fox hunting demonstrations riot in demonstrations that ran riot in Parliament Square. They actually burst into parliament at one point, simon hart organised pubuc point, simon hart organised public harassment campaigns of the mps. And guess what . His position now, hes now chief whip under rishi sunak. Position now, hes now chief whip under rishi sunak. So the whip under rishi sunak. So the conservative party has no problem with rallying the mob and using mob potential harassment of mps as all part of democracy. But when it comes to movements that abdullah hang on, i was theyre not true. Yeah i was there. Sure on the countryside march no doubt you can be as rude as you like. Thats fine , i was you like. Thats fine, i was there, i was there on the countryside. March 406,000 of us marched through london. There wasnt a single arrest. There wasnt a single arrest. There was no disorder. There wasnt even a piece of litter left behind. And the difference here, and yes, i was involved in this. And yes, i was involved in this. Not that i hunt, but i believe in people having the freedom to do within reason what they want. The difference is the lobbying of those members of parliament wasnt intimidatory. What wasnt intimidatory. What happenedin wasnt intimidatory. What happened in Parliament Square the day that the snp resolution was due to be debated is mps were frightened to leave the building, so youre denying that there was no riot in Parliament Square due to the foxhunting protest that i was, im telling people burst into parliament, i was on the cusp and there was actually its literally called pubuc actually its literally called public harassment campaigns against mps. I wasnt there on that day. I was there on the big march. The point is, were march. But the point is, were not talking when you were there. Were talking about the historical record. You can check out riot happened. Out the riot happened. Any group bursts and if any group bursts in and behaves badly threatens or behaves badly and threatens or intimidates, should be, of intimidates, it should be, of course, know law should course, you know the law should be enforced. But my question to you, really happens. You, it really happens. My question you think question to you is, do you think this extremism is this definition of extremism is helpful or not . Its if you ban something no, its if you ban something which is to do with peoples beliefs that is about beliefs that is not about inciting violence. Its then inciting violence. Its then this is thought policing. And in the modern world, i often say that the terms extremism, which is unhelpful to some at least the americans had the wherewithal to say countering violent just violent extremism, not just extremism, terms extremism, but using the terms extremism, but using the terms extremism today is like a is the modern secular version of, denouncing heresy and heretics. Its no, no, i get the point. It is dangerous and it depends how its used. And i agree with you on that point. Toby young, free speech union, im really worried about this. I mean, i and i do actually take abdullahs point that people are perfectly entitled to their opinions. Theyre perfectly entitled to their elected entitled to let their elected representatives know those opinions. Its a question of whether its with whether its done with intimidation. It . Whether its done with inti yes. Ilioii. It . Whether its done with inti yes. And it . Whether its done with inti yes. And clearly . Whether its done with inti yes. And clearly this yes. And clearly this definition of extremism, it doesnt just encompass people who we currently think of, i think as extremists and who might be captured by the criminal law. Its a below the criminal law. Its a below the criminal law. Its a below the criminal law threshold. So it falls into the legal but harmful grey area, which is something as a free speech lobbyist , im a free speech lobbyist, im obviously suspicious of. I mean, i think the starting point and i think i disagree with abdullah here, is that we do have a problem with islamic extremism in this country. Problem with islamic extremism in this country. We see it in in this country. We see it in our city centres every saturday. Im not saying everyone on the pro palestinian marches right on that point. That point. Do we have a problem . Do we have a problem . How is demonstrating to stop the massacre of civilians in gaza anything to do with extremism . Extremism . Well, i think, i think i think well, go on, go on. The answer is not everyone on those protests could conceivably be designated extremists, but designated as extremists, but there extremists on there are some extremists on those protests. Those protests. But the vast, vast majority of those are not extremists on the back of their jackets. That may well be true carrying jihadi flags. But if there are people that genuinely are and are are extremists and are and are and are inciting bad, bad behaviour, we need to know behaviour, then we need to know about it. W e police will about it. Police will arrest then the police will arrest them. Already existing them. Theres already existing legislation that will that will stop cenotaphs, that stop defacing of cenotaphs, that will stop people from inciting violence, inciting that violence, inciting racism, that already exists. And we dont need any extremism. Well, in some ways, maybe, maybe that point is right. Do we need this definition . Need this definition . Well, my mike, ive got ive got a sort of broad concern and then a precise concern. My broad concern im not sure that concern is im not sure that there is a robust evidence based to suggest that you define to suggest that if you define certain groups as extremists and you prevent them from participating in public life, which is essentially the strategy here, that that will actually counter extremism, it hasnt worked very effectively before, in some cases , people before, in some cases, people can claim, look, im on a banned list, im an extremist, according to the tory government, that could actually enhance their appeal and make them more attractive, not less attractive to vulnerable young men in danger of radicalisation. So my broad concern. So thats my broad concern. Im not sure works as not sure this works as a strategy for countering extremism. My more precise concern, and this is probably where we abdullah is that where we agree abdullah is that the definition . I mean, the government come with a government cant come up with a definition just captures definition that just captures islamic nobody islamic extremists, but nobody else that could be too easily challenged. And the government clearly thinks its not just a problem with islamic extremists. There far right there are some far right extremists worried extremists we should be worried about, they point to nick about, too. They point to Nick Griffins of george griffins endorsement of george galloway, but the problem galloway, etc. But the problem is, try and come up is, when they try and come up with a broader, more universal definition of extremism, it then the going the risk is its going to capture that of us capture groups that none of us would to see from would want to see banned from participation. I participation. No, i agree, i think should be gender critical. Feminists worry the worry with this as to which groups are going to be deemed to be extremists, or perhaps which individuals would be deemed its civil will make Civil Servants that will make the decision and that worries me as well. The decision and that worries me as final thought i think theres final thought i think theres one organisation should be one organisation that should be deemed extreme. They want deemed to be extreme. They want to peoples to clamp down upon peoples right and the right to demonstrate. And the whole demonstration is whole point of demonstration is to kind democratic to give some kind of democratic pressure to politicians. Thats the point of the whole point of demonstrations. Whats the the whole point