Michael Gove names far-right and Islamist groups which could fall under fresh extremism definition
Michael Gove has named five groups that will be re-assessed as a result of the government’s new definition of extremism.
Speaking in the Commons, the communities secretary said two far-right organisations – the British National Socialist Movement and the Patriotic Alternative – and three Islamist organisations – the Muslim Association of Britain, Cage and Mend – were groups “we should be concerned” about.
Follow live: Reaction as Gove gives extremism statement to MPs
Speaking after the government announced the new definition of extremism this morning, the minister said it was “critically important we do not unwittingly or through ignorance fund or support organisations who are themselves extremist” as it had been the case in the past that “extremist groups and actors have sought to present themselves as moderate voices representative of majority or mainstream opinion”.
Mr Gove also sought to reassure critics the plan was “in no way intending to restrict freedom of expression, religion or belief”, saying gender critical campaigners, trans activists, those with conservative religious views and environmental protest groups would not be included.
But, he added: “The government cannot be in a position where, unwittingly or not, we sponsor, subsidise or support in any way organisations or individuals opposed to the freedoms we hold dear.”
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, agreed that “hateful extremism threatens the safety of our communities and the unity of our country,” and was “a serious problem which demands a serious response”.
But she criticised how long it had taken the government to act since their last definition was introduced in 2011, and said it was “deeply concerning” that extremists had already “benefited from government engagement, endorsement and support”.
Ms Rayner also raised concerns about how the announcement had been trailed, with leaks detailing organisations that could face reassessment after the definition came into force.
Mr Gove revealed an investigation into the leaks had been launched, saying it was “fundamentally a challenge to the effective operation of government”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Extremism redefinition will ‘risk more division’, say Muslim activists
The new definition described extremism as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance” that aims to “negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” or “undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”.
It also includes those who “intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve” either of those aims.
The update came as part of a ministerial drive to clamp down on the Islamist and far-right extremism that has intensified in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war.
But some critics have raised concerns that it could have a “chilling effect” on free speech, while others say it doesn’t go far enough and there needs to be a change in the law to tackle extremism.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Labour’s Darren Jones: ‘We need more than a definition’
Mr Gove pointed to five specific groups that would come in for further scrutiny now the new definition is in place.
After warning the “activities of the extreme right-wing are a growing worry”, the minister said: “Across this House, I am sure that we would agree that organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, who promote neo-Nazi ideology, argue for forced repatriation, a white ethno state and the targeting of minority groups by intimidation, are precisely the type of groups about which we should be concerned and whose activities we will assess against the new definition.”
And after saying the religion of Islam should not be confused with the “totalitarian ideology” of Islamists, he added: “Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, which is the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups such as Cage and Mend, give rise to concern for the Islamist orientation and views.
“We will be holding these and other organisations to account, to assess if they meet our definition of extremism and will take action as appropriate.”
Mr Gove confirmed there would be a new “centre of excellence” on counterterrorism created within the Home Office, promising it would become a “world-leading authority” on the issue.
The minister added: “The liberties that we hold dear and indeed the democratic principles we are all sent here to uphold, requires us to counter and challenge the extremists who seek to intimidate, coerce and to divide.
“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 means upholding freedom of expression, religion and belief when we are threatened, facing down harassment and hate, supporting the communities facing the greatest challenge from extremist activity and ensuring this House and this country are safe, free and united.”
The prime minister’s official spokesperson confirmed a full list of organisations covered by the government’s new extremism would be published “in the coming weeks”.
But Labour wants ministers to also update its full counter-extremism strategy and its action plan on hate crime.
Ms Rayner told MPs: “We need much stronger action to tackle the corrosive forms of hatred that devastate lives and corrode communities.
“But today’s statement does not go far enough. And regardless of how workable and effective this new definition and centre of excellence is, this announcement will not be enough.”
Tory MPs also voiced their concerns, with former immigration minister Robert Jenrick saying: “I fear that the definition, though well-intentioned, lands in no man’s land – not going far enough to tackle the real extremists, not doing enough to protect the non-extremists, those people who are simply expressing contrarian views who might find this definition used against them, not perhaps now, but possibly in the future.”
Fellow Conservative Sir Edward Leigh also said he was worried the definition was “going to add to the increasing culture, in what should be a free country, of the intolerance of the right to offend”.
Politics
Mandelson appointment was ‘worth the risk’ despite ‘strong relationship’ with Epstein, says minister
Appointing Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US was “worth the risk”, a minister has told Sky News.
Peter Kyle said the government put the Labour peer forward for the Washington role, despite knowing he had a “strong relationship” with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
It is this relationship that led to Peter Mandelson being fired on Thursday by the prime minister.
Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. File pic
But explaining the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, Business Secretary Mr Kyle said: “The risk of appointing [him] knowing what was already public was worth the risk.
“Now, of course, we’ve seen the emails which were not published at the time, were not public and not even known about. And that has changed this situation.”
Speaking to Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, he rejected the suggestion that Lord Mandelson was appointed to Washington before security checks were completed.
He explained there was a two-stage vetting process for Lord Mandelson before he took on the ambassador role.
The first was done by the Cabinet Office, while the second was a “political process where there were political conversations done in Number 10 about all the other aspects of an appointment”, he said.
This is an apparent reference to Sir Keir Starmer asking follow-up questions based on the information provided by the vetting.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘We knew it was a strong relationship’
These are believed to have included why Lord Mandelson continued contact with Epstein after he was convicted and why he was reported to have stayed in one of the paedophile financier’s homes while he was in prison.
Mr Kyle said: “Both of these things turned up information that was already public, and a decision was made based on Peter’s singular talents in this area, that the risk of appointing knowing what was already public was worth the risk.”
Mr Kyle also pointed to some of the government’s achievements under Lord Mandelson, such as the UK becoming the first country to sign a trade deal with the US, and President Donald Trump’s state visit next week.
Mr Kyle also admitted that the government knew that Lord Mandelson and Epstein had “a strong relationship”.
“We knew that there were risks involved,” he concluded.
PM had only ‘extracts of emails’ ahead of defence of Mandelson at PMQs – as Tories accuse him of ‘lying’
Speaking to Sky News, Kyle also sought to clarify the timeline of what Sir Keir Starmer knew about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, and when he found this out.
It follows Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch accusing the prime minister of “lying to the whole country” about his knowledge of the then US ambassador’s relationship with the paedophile.
Allegations about Lord Mandelson began to emerge in the newspapers on Tuesday, while more serious allegations – that the Labour peer had suggested Epstein’s first conviction for sexual offences was wrongful and should be challenged – were sent to the Foreign Office on the same day by Bloomberg, which was seeking a response from the government.
But the following day, Sir Keir went into the House of Commons and publicly backed Britain’s man in Washington, giving him his full confidence. Only the next morning – on Thursday – did the PM then sack Lord Mandelson, a decision Downing Street has insisted was made based on “new information”.
Read more:
Witch-hunt vibe in Labour on who approved appointment
Senior Labour MP demands answers over Mandelson vetting
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Vetting ‘is very thorough’
Speaking to Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, Mr Kyle said: “Number 10 had what was publicly available on Tuesday, which was extracts of emails which were not in context, and they weren’t the full email.
“Immediately upon having being alerted to extracts of emails, the Foreign Office contacted Peter Mandelson and asked for his account of the emails and asked for them to be put into context and for his response. That response did not come before PMQs [on Wednesday].
“Then after PMQs, the full emails were released by Bloomberg in the evening.
“By the first thing the next morning when the prime minister had time to read the emails in full, having had them in full and reading them almost immediately of having them – Peter was withdrawn as ambassador.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Government deeming Mandelson to be ‘worth the risk’ is unlikely to calm Labour MPs
The Conservatives have claimed Sir Keir is lying about what he knew, with Laura Trott telling Sky News there are “grave questions about the prime minister’s judgement”.
The shadow education secretary called for “transparency”, and told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “We need to understand what was known and when.”
Laura Trott says there are ‘grave questions about the prime minister’s judgement’
They believe that Sir Keir was in possession of the full emails on Tuesday, because the Foreign Office passed these to Number 10. This is despite the PM backing Mandelson the following day.
Ms Trott explained: “We are calling for transparency because, if what we have outlined is correct, then the prime minister did lie and that is an extremely, extremely serious thing to have happened.”
She added: “This was a prime minister who stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that he was going to restore political integrity and look where we are now. We’ve had two senior resignations in the space of the number of weeks.
“The prime minister’s authority is completely shot.”
But Ms Trott refused to be drawn on whether she thinks Sir Keir should resign, only stating that he is “a rudderless, a weak prime minister whose authority is shot at a time we can least afford it as a country”.
If you want to know why so many Labour MPs are seething over the government’s response to the Mandelson saga, look no further than my mobile phone at 9.12am this Sunday.
At the top of the screen is a news notification about an interview with the family of a victim of the notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, saying his close friend Peter Mandelson should “never have been made” US ambassador.
Directly below that, a Sky News notification on the business secretary’s interview, explaining that the appointment of Lord Mandelson to the job was judged to be “worth the risk” at the time.
Peter Kyle went on to praise Lord Mandelson’s “outstanding” and “singular” talents and the benefits that he could bring to the US-UK relationship.
While perhaps surprisingly candid in nature about the decision-making process that goes on in government, this interview is unlikely to calm concerns within Labour.
Quite the opposite.
For many in the party, this is a wholly different debate to a simple cost-benefit calculation of potential political harm.
As one long-time party figure put it to my colleague Sam Coates: “I don’t care about Number Ten or what this means for Keir or any of that as much as I care that this culture of turning a blind eye to horrendous behaviour is endemic at the top of society and Peter Kyle has literally just come out and said it out loud.
“He was too talented and the special relationship too fraught for his misdeeds to matter enough. It’s just disgusting.”
There are two problems for Downing Street here.
The first is that you now have a government which – after being elected on the promise to restore high standards – appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Government deeming Mandelson to be ‘worth the risk’ is unlikely to calm Labour MPs
Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures – Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner – and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.
The second is that it once again demonstrates an apparent lack of ability in government to see around corners and deal with political and policy crises, before they start knocking lumps out of the Prime Minister.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sir Keir Starmer is facing questions over the appointment and subsequent sacking of Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US.
Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we’ve had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing the with logic of the choice) but the fact that Sir Keir Starmer walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full-throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn’t be able to stay in post.
The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn’t sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.
But good process doesn’t always align with good politics.
Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.
A man has admitted arson after a major fire at an MP’s constituency office.
Joshua Oliver, 28, pleaded guilty to starting the fire which destroyed the office of Labour MP Sharon Hodgson, at Vermont House in Washington, Tyne and Wear.
The fire also wrecked a small charity for people with very rare genetic diseases and an NHS mental health service for veterans.
The guilty plea was entered at Newcastle Magistrates’ Court on the basis that it was reckless rather than intentional.
Hodgson, who has been an MP since 2005, winning her seat again in 2019. Pic: Reuters
The Crown did not accept that basis of plea.
Oliver, of no fixed address, had been living in a tent nearby, the court heard.
Northumbria Police previously said it was “alerted to a fire at a premises on Woodland Terrace in the Washington area” shortly after 12.20am on Thursday.
“Emergency services attended and no one is reported to have been injured in the incident,” it added.
Drone footage from the scene showed extensive damage to the building.
Read more:
Weather warning in place for Sunday
Migrant hotel critics meet asylum seekers
A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Our prosecutors have worked to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial and that it is in the public interest to pursue criminal proceedings.
“We have worked closely with Northumbria Police as they carried out their investigation.”
Oliver was remanded in custody and will appear at Newcastle Crown Court on Tuesday, 14 October.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment11 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024