Minister fails to name which groups or individuals will fall under new definition of extremism

Victoria Atkins spoke to Sky News after Michael Gove urged pro-Palestinian protesters to question whether extremist groups were behind some demonstrations.

Samuel Osborne

News reporter @samuelosborne93

Sunday 10 March 2024 15:03, UK

Why you can trust Sky News

A cabinet minister has failed to name which groups or individuals would fall under the upcoming revised definition of extremist groups.

Health Secretary Victoria Atkins was interviewed on Sky News' Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips after her frontbench colleague Michael Gove urged pro-Palestinian protesters to question whether extremist groups are behind some demonstrations.

She said the communities secretary was "setting out his ideas as to what we should do to tackle some of these very extreme views that we are sadly seeing expressed around our streets".

Politics Live: Scrapping non-dom status 'an utter humiliation' for Tories, says Reeves

Tens of thousands of people took part in a protest against Israel's war in Gaza organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) in London on Saturday - the fifth march in the capital this year. Five were arrested and a counter-demonstrator de-arrested.

The upcoming revised definition of extremist groups would receive "more specificity" and enable the government and other public bodies to ban funding and engagement with Islamist and far-right groups, Mr Gove told the Sunday Telegraph.

Asked by Trevor Phillips about whether this meant there would be additions to the list this week, Ms Atkins said Mr Gove's comments were a continuation of the warnings about extremism that Rishi Sunak gave in his Downing Street address last week, "namely that there are some people, sadly, who hold views that are contrary to the values that we hold as a country".

"We should not allow those views to percolate through society or indeed allow them to try to change the way we as a society conduct our democracy, the way we allow parliament to set its own rules and conventions," she said.

Ms Atkins did not name which groups or individuals might fall under the new definition, but pointed to pro-Palestine activists spray-painting and slashing a portrait of Lord Balfour at the University of Cambridge's Trinity College on Friday, adding "this is not the way we conduct democracy and express our views in this country".

👉 Listen above then tap here to follow Electoral Dysfunction wherever you get your podcasts 👈

Jewish residents 'worried about walking in London' during demonstrations

Pressed on whether the government was planning to ban groups because of the views they hold, Ms Atkins said there was a "longstanding convention" in the UK of "proscription for those groups that meet the very strict criteria under the legislation," which she described as "the most extreme end".

But she said "at the other end of the scale" there was concern that in large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations "there can be a minority of people who hold and extol views that make the rest of us feel not just deeply uncomfortable, but if you are a Jewish resident of London, some have said they feel worried about walking in London when these demonstrations happen, and that's not right".

Risk for government is they seek to draw dividing line where none exists

By Matthew Thompson, Sky correspondent

The government's plans to create, in Rishi Sunak's words from outside Downing Street, a "robust framework" for tackling extremism have had a little more flesh added to the bones this weekend.

This coming week, Michael Gove is set to publish a new definition of extremism, which looks like it will link extremism to some attempt to undermine British democracy or democratic values.

The move has prompted howls of outrage from various quarters: civil liberties groups concerned it will suppress freedom of speech, and religious groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain, who fear they will fall foul of a definition they have branded "offensive, ludicrous and dangerous".

However, one quarter from which there is barely a squeak of dissent is the Labour Party.

Some observers have noted the Tories' extremism drive is a way to seek a dividing line with Labour. Potentially even to make relations with Labour's large Muslim vote even more fractious.

But what is clear from Labour's various pronouncements over the last week or so is that their settled position is broadly behind the extremism crackdown.

Last week, Labour leader Keir Starmer agreed with Rishi Sunak's Downing Street speech.

On Sunday morning, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves told Sky News they would wait to see the detail of Mr Gove's policy, but that it was "right that we look again at the definition [of extremism]".

Yes, there may be noises off from those on the left of the Labour Party. But the risk for the government is that they seek to draw a dividing line where none exists.

For Labour, the risk is that, like in debates over last week's budget, they again open themselves to the charge of being little more than Conservatives in a red rosette.

New definition is not attempt to draw dividing line with Labour

The health secretary insisted the new definition was not a political attempt to draw a dividing line with Labour.

She said: "It is precisely because we have seen, sadly, in the last six months or so, this rise in extremist ideas which is making people - other citizens in our country - feel deeply uncomfortable.

"So, it is that balancing act between... freedom of speech, but also the right of citizens to go about their daily lives."

'Genuine debate to be had' about freedom of expression

Justice minister Mike Freer said there is "genuine debate to be had about what is legitimate freedom of expression".

After speaking at an event in north London calling for the return of the Israeli hostages still held by Hamas, he told Sky News the government needs to "redraw that line so people know what is legitimate and what is extremism".

Minister fails to name which groups or individuals will fall under new definition of extremism

Risk for government is they seek to draw dividing line where none exists

Related Topics