what you are calling for is that what you are calling for is essentially perhaps a change in the law, ratherthan essentially perhaps a change in the law, rather than an update to the definition is make this definition doesn't proscribe any kinds of crimes, so what you are calling for is a different piece of legislation multi—definition of extremism? what multi-definition of extremism? what i'm sa in: multi-definition of extremism? what i'm saying is — multi-definition of extremism? what i'm saying is that _ multi-definition of extremism? what i'm saying is that the _ multi—definition of extremism? wusgt i'm saying is that the announcement today, and i appreciate that the secretary of state is yet to speak in parliament, but the announcement todayis in parliament, but the announcement today is a step in the right direction, but it could go further, and i do call on the government and mr grove and mr sunak and others to be braver in tackling extremism where we find it. let's tackle the issue of islamist extremism, because i know a lot, there has been a lot of commentary about that. the first people that we help by tackling islamist are muslims. the vast

majority of british muslims are decent, kind, peaceful, generous people, and they have within their community a minority within a minority, if you like, of these islamist extremists that we need to be much more... mr islamist extremists that we need to be much more...— islamist extremists that we need to be much more... mr bloom, i'm sorry, we have to _ be much more... mr bloom, i'm sorry, we have to cut — be much more... mr bloom, i'm sorry, we have to cut short _ be much more... mr bloom, i'm sorry, we have to cut short because _ be much more... mr bloom, i'm sorry, we have to cut short because the - we have to cut short because the communities secretary is now addressing the house on the government's new definition for extremism. de united kingdom is stronger because of our diversity. but our values of inclusivity and tolerance are under challenge from extremist groups which are radicalising our young people and driving greater polarisation within and between communities to further our own ends. in order to protect our democratic values and enhance social cohesion it is important to reinforce what we all have in common and be clear and precise in identifying threats by

extremism. extremism can lead to the rationalisation of individuals, deny people their full rights and opportunities, suppress freedom of expression, incite hatred, and ultimately it can lead to acts of terrorism. most extremes materials and activities are not illegal and do not meet security or national terrorism thresholds. islamist and neo—nazi groups are operating lawfully but the advocacy to promote the end of democracy. we have been working with civil society and faith groups in those areas with social cohesion is under strain, to de—escalate tensions and explore the most constructive support that we can offer. from our engagement we hear unease over the safety and security of community organisations, political candidates and elected officials. councillors have been threatened with violence, meetings

have been structured, elected members talk of walking a tightrope, terrified of saying the wrong thing, offending one side or the other. many choose to remain silent. mr speaker, such is the chilling effect of these extremist groups on our democracy. it is gravely concerning that the conflict in the middle east if driving further polarisation. we have seen a terrible increase in hate crimes as well as an increase in radicalisation. troublingly, there is also evidence that some islamists and extreme right—wing groups seek to tear our society apart are working together to maximise their reach. that is white civil society organisations like the community security trust as well as muslims against anti—semitism, the educational charity solution... is so important. we have provided

additionalfunding to so important. we have provided additional funding to counter anti—semitism and anti—muslim hatred and we will do more. will shortly establish a new fund to provide additional and tangible support for grassroots organisations building bridges and fighting division. i wish to commend those doings in which to counter prejudice. in working with civil society it is important that we do not unwittingly or through ignorance fund or otherwise support organisations who are themselves extremist. in the past it has unfortunately been the case that extremist groups and actors have sought to present themselves as moderate voices, representative of moderate opinions. the government has had an definition of extremism since 2011, it has informed counterterrorism work and was designed to assist in government engagement. but in a number of cases organisations which are clearly extreme have nevertheless benefited from state engagement and support.

furthermore, have exploited that association to further an extremist agenda. 0ne speaker in state schools who run an islamic school and was on standing committees on religious education. he sued the bbc when the bbc described him as an extremist, thejudge in the bbc described him as an extremist, the judge in the case conducted his own scrupulous research, identifying many occasions where he advocated extreme positions including promoting religious violence by telling audience that in support of islam would be a good achievement. not only was the claim dismissed he drew specific attention to extremist exploiting sponsorship from state institutions and outlined the need for a more precise definition to guide engagement by government. we

have since been able to work with the crown prosecution service and the crown prosecution service and the metropolitan police and those charities that benefit from public funding. we know that from the independent review that such independent review that such independent review that such independent review has provided funding or legitimacy for those groups that oppose our shared values. this legitimising of their views can lead groups to... my group is put providing a more rigorous definition along with a cross government principles for use with external groups. also detailed guidance as to what the definition does and does and does not capture. we are setting up a new centre of excellence as a world leading authority on best practice on data and research. our plans, drawn up in close collaboration with the home office will enable the government to express which groups fall within the definition when we can point to the

evidence and explain the funding and engagement consequences. they will also support national efforts to counter the work of extremists who promote ideology, this will strengthen vital front line work and the new centre of excellence will help us understand the role played by state actors in extremist activity taking place in our country. the wider knowledge of what constitutes extremist behaviour will i hope help us identify potential threats and take steps to challenge them. critically, the rights that we enjoy extent to everyone. freedom of expression, religion and belief, rule of law, upholding democracy, these are the cornerstones of our supply society which every side of this house strive to uphold. let me be clear, i definition will not affect gender critical campaigners, in my mental protest groups or those

exercising the proper right to free speech. the government has taken every precaution to strike a balance in drawing up the new definition, protecting fundamental rights and safeguarding citizens. our definition draws on the work done by the government and the metropolitan police commissioner. the proposed opposition will hold that the extremism is the promotion of ideology based on violence or intolerance that intends to negate the fundamental rights and freedom of others or undermine, replace the uk system and intentionally create an environment for this to achieve these results. it is important to stress that we are not restricting freedom of expression or belief, the government cannot be in a position where it unwittingly subsidises organisations or individuals opposed to the freedoms we hold dear. across

this house i'm sure that we would agree that organisations such as the british national socialist movement and patriotic alternative who promote neo—nazi ideology, a white ethanol state and targeting minority groups are precisely the types of groups are precisely the types of groups about which we should be concerned and whose activities we will assess against the new definition. the activities of the extreme right—wing are a growing worry, the targeting of muslim and jewish communities by this group a profound concern. and it is importantjust as profound concern. and it is important just as with profound concern. and it is importantjust as with our definition of extremism to be precise in the use of language when the describing islamism. islam is a great faith, religion of peace, inspires acts of charity and celebrates virtue and generosity, kindness. islamism is a totalitarian ideology which seeks to establish a

islamic state and seeks the overthrow of liberal, democratic principles. it has its roots in the thinking of the muslim brotherhood, and the muslim brotherhood ideology. the palestinian branch of the muslim brotherhood is hamas. organisations such as the muslim association of britain which is the british affiliate and other groups give rise to concerns for the islamist orientation, we will hold these and other organisations to account to assess if they fit our definition and will take action as appropriate. there are further steps that we will take in the coming days and weeks to marginalise extremist groups and support and strengthen those communities where extremists are active. this will include responding to the forthcoming report on social cohesion and resilience and the

independent review of how to counter political violence and disruption. in this debate we must never forget about the experiences of victims who are targeted by extremist groups and the severe and distressing impact it has on their lives. so i am pleased that the honourable lady will be addressing this. the time has come for us to all stand together to come back forces of division. the liberties that we hold dear and the democratic principles we are sent here to uphold require us to counter and challenge extremists who seek to intimidate and divide. we have to be clear eyed about the threat we face, precise about where it comes from and rigorous in defending our democracy. that means upholding freedom of expression where it is threatened, facing that harassment and hate, supporting community is facing challenges and ensuring this house and country are safe, free and united. i commend the statement to the house. i

united. i commend the statement to the house. is, united. i commend the statement to the house. ,, ., ., the house. i called the shadow secretary of — the house. i called the shadow secretary of state. _ the house. i called the shadow secretary of state. and - the house. i called the shadow secretary of state. and i - the house. i called the shadow- secretary of state. and i thank my thankin: secretary of state. and i thank my thanking the _ secretary of state. and i thank my thanking the secretary _ secretary of state. and i thank my thanking the secretary of- secretary of state. and i thank my thanking the secretary of state - secretary of state. and i thank my thanking the secretary of state for his briefing today and yesterday. hateful extremism threatens the safety of our community and the unity of our country. everyone across this house can agree that this is a serious problem which demands a serious response. i want to begin by saying, from the outset, when it comes to our national security, when it comes to the threat of radicalisation, when it comes to the toxic scourge of islamophobia, neo—nazism, anti—semitism or any other corrosive hatred, the whole house can and should work together. the way the government does this work matters, the language that we all use is important. i want to welcome the secretary of state's opening words that it

secretary of state's opening words thatitis secretary of state's opening words that it is our diversity and values which make our country stronger. indeed, the secretary of state is right to raise the concerns about the dangers facing our elected representatives. we must be free to representatives. we must be free to represent the views of our constituents, we all have a responsibility to work to extinguish the flames of division and never to fan them. well it may be part of the nature of our politics for passion to sometimes take centre stage, and while we may challenge these plans, if the secretary of state wants to engage going forward, he has my word that we will do so in good faith. the reason that i say challenge is because i do believe he has made the mistake in the way that this policy has been trailed in the last few weeks so i am glad he has come to give clarification. but it is not right that we have spent the last few days poring over a possible definition in the papers and it is not right that the department has

leaked the names of groups that may or may not be covered when he rightly says this work should be based on due diligence. it is not right that each stage of the recruitment of new islamophobia adviser has been mired in controversy. can the secretary of state confirmed he is now appointed an adviser? on today's announcement, we will scrutinise this new definition and it will be crucial to see how it is applied in practice. but can i ask the secretary of state to set out today how the new centre of excellence will operate and how it will be resourced. can he confirm how this new definition will work in practice? how exactly will it restrict the government's engagement? and can he explain how these restrictions will only relate to government engagement or later extend it to other public bodies such as the police and universities?

given this new definition, the public will rightly be alarmed at the idea that government ministers could already have met with extremist groups. can the secretary of state shed light on this? renewed vigilance and diligence is welcome in the current climate, but if his own department now needs to cut ties with extremist groups, it begs the question why they were working with them in the first place the mac. given that he says this will not affect gender critical campaigners or those with conservative beliefs, environmental protest groups or those exercising the proper right to free speech, can he expect explain which groups this definition will affect? and whether government has drawn the line. this is not the first time that the government has identified this risk or promised to act. as he mentioned in the opening, at the beginning of 2011, the

conservative home secretary told the house that if organisations do not support the values of democracy, human rights, equality, participation in society, we will not work with them and we will not fund them. it begs the question, why has it taken the government of 13 years to address this? the secretary of state says organisations which are clearly extreme have benefited from government engagement, endorsement and support. and even suggest that those groups have exploited government engagement. can he understand how deeply concerning this is to hear, he must explain exactly how this has been allowed to happen. we know that there has been a huge surge in online extremism, can the secretary of state give assurance and how this will be dealt with? what action he is taken across government to assess and confront

online hit? we know that extremism doesn't exist in a vacuum and we need political leadership on this. but equality of good leadership is to empower others. the secretary of state says the department has been working with faith groups, civil society and local councils, i agree they have a crucial role to play in tackling extremism. what form is that consultation taking and will he publish the findings of that consultation? on the wider work now needed, can the secretary of state set out if this work will be underpinned by a new cross government counter extremism strategy, given the last one is now nine years out of date. will it include action to rebuild resilience and cohesion of communities? he mentions new funding, how much will that funding be and how will it be allocated? how will it interact with other funding streams including multi—faith dialogue? i also want to raise the point about hate crime and

how important this is in tackling extremism. we have seen an appalling surge of anti—semitism and islamophobia in recent months, the previous strategy is now four years out of date. can i ask the secretary of state when woolley i have an updated hate crime action plan and have ministers abandon plans to bring forward a new strategy? and i asked the minister why is the anti—muslim working group and the anti—semitism working group no longer meeting? we need stronger action to tackle the corrosive forms of hatred that devastate lives and corrode communities, but today's statement doesn't go far enough. regardless of how workable this definition and centre of excellent is this announcement will not be enough. i want to finish by echoing the words of the archbishop of canterbury and the warning that against the backdrop of growing

division, it is for political leaders to provide a conciliatory tone and pursue policies that bring us together, not risk dividing us apart. i look forward to working with the secretary of state on this. i am very grateful to the shadow secretary of state for the constructive detailed and approach she is taking to what is inevitably challenging and difficult issues. i enjoyed the opportunity to talk to her and other colleagues yesterday and look forward to working together in the future. i know it is of all of the opposition to challenge in a constructive way, the way that it is a challenge today i wholeheartedly agree. i also agree with the shadow secretary of state that the danger to elected representatives is growing and is something that my right honourable friend the screw mr has invested time and money to counter. can i also say, passion,

vigour, determination is part of the meat of our politics and nothing in anything we have set today should take away from our desire to see free speech exercised as energetically as possible. the shadow secretary of state mentioned the leaking of information relating to our work,... the leaking of information relating to ourwork,... it the leaking of information relating to our work,... it is fundamentally a challenge to the effective operating of government and a leak inquiry has been commissioned in order to see how some of that information was shared. there is an opportunity for all of us as a result of the statement to scrutinise the detailed. the shadow secretary of state talks about the centre of excellence, impartial civil servants will be supplemented in their work by academics and academic bodies. we will work with the expertise in the home office to

ensure that all our work is rigorous. we will make sure that if a decision is made to list an organisation as extremist, we will show our working, the evidence which leads us to our conclusion and the judgment we have made will be there for everyone to see. the shadow secretary of state asked why it was the case that in the past government had unwittingly involve themselves or been engaged with extremist organisations. it is because the definition of our well intentioned and drawn up with care was perhaps insufficient and perhaps insufficiently policed that we thought it was appropriate to update that definition and this follows on for the independent review and other examples that were brought to the government's attention. i think the real sin would be having been told by independent figures, by the courts and by the report that we

need to look again, the real sin would have been to not to and stuck to a course which had led to mistakes in the past. the shadow secretary of state asks about the wider work on resilience. we will be publishing a more detailed action plan that will include funding commitments to support organisations on the ground that offer a greater degree of community resilience and i look forward to working with her and others to achieve that. i’m look forward to working with her and others to achieve that.— others to achieve that. i'm glad to follow the previous _ others to achieve that. i'm glad to follow the previous speakers. - others to achieve that. i'm glad to follow the previous speakers. it i others to achieve that. i'm glad to follow the previous speakers. it is| follow the previous speakers. it is an interesting question, went 90 years ago if you would be right to identify oswald mosley and his approach, notjust politicians, approach, not just politicians, marching approach, notjust politicians, marching through the streets as a threat and why it was that it took so long recently when at sussex, the student union called a woman

extremist for writing a book which is now mainstream. filling the gap between which is not criminal, identified as wrong is an important thing and i hope the house gives support to the proposal today. i am very grateful. _ support to the proposal today. i am very grateful, they _ support to the proposal today. i an very grateful, they should rightly be a high bar on the use of criminal sanctions. we should seek to encourage free speech, but it is quite right that we should draw attention to the freedom restricting harassment that some have engaged in. i endorse the point. i harassment that some have engaged in. i endorse the point.— in. i endorse the point. iwould first like to _ in. i endorse the point. iwould first like to wish _ in. i endorse the point. iwould first like to wish a _ in. i endorse the point. iwould first like to wish a good - in. i endorse the point. i would l first like to wish a good ramadan in. i endorse the point. i would - first like to wish a good ramadan to everyone who's marking this significant month in the islamic calendar. friday is also the international day to combat islamophobia. but it is in this context that muslims are afraid to speak out lest they be targeted for their beliefs or indeed labelled

extremists themselves. the government's independent of terrorist legislation has said that these proposals by the government could undermine the uk's reputation because it would not be seen as democratic. others including the archbishop of canterbury and york has said that the new definition risks disproportionately targeting muslim communities who are already experiencing rising levels of hate and abuse and said that the new definition risks vilifying the wrong people. the muslim council of britain is also concerned by the government's proposals. considering they are undemocratic and potentially illegal, the organisation is also concerned by the lack of engagement with some of the lack of engagement with some of the groups that the minister comes here to talk about. i ask him would any of the muslim groups he mentioned specifically contacted so that they would know they are in the

statement today? there has been a desperately worrying increase in islamophobia and anti—semitism since the 7th of october, it should concern us all that this has happened. we stand against extremism and the targeting of groups in our society. but this extremism is on the rise, driven in no small part by the rise, driven in no small part by the culture war stood by the conservatives, by those who would call peace demonstrations hate marchers. and also as we have heard this week, as we have also heard, racism and misogyny by funders of the party of government. can i ask him if he considers that racism and misogyny me to his definition of extremism? and if you believe the statement about diane abbott, i

think she should be shot, would meet his definition of extremism? if he does believe it meets the definition, will his party returned the £10 million or will he donated to a charity? i’m the £10 million or will he donated to a charity?— to a charity? i'm grateful to the honourable _ to a charity? i'm grateful to the honourable lady _ to a charity? i'm grateful to the honourable lady for _ to a charity? i'm grateful to the honourable lady for the - to a charity? i'm grateful to the honourable lady for the point . to a charity? i'm grateful to the i honourable lady for the point she makes, she is right to say that we need to be precise and it is important as i stressed in my statement to have the opportunity to stress again to not conflate the specific challenge from certain groups with the broader muslim community. it is absolutely because we need to be precise in order to draw that distinction that we are then able to support organisations on the ground that are seeking to bring people together and to counter anti—muslim hate and anti—semitism. can i also thank her and her colleagues in the scottish government for the engagement we undertook in order to share best practice of how we work with groups on the ground across the united kingdom who are engaged in this

vital counter extremism work. she refers to the comments by the gentleman not in this house but clearly racist and regrettable, and speaking as someone who was himself targeted by an extremist who was attempting to kill me and who then went on to murder a colleague and friend of this house, i take that sort of language extremely seriously. sort of language extremely seriously-— sort of language extremely seriousl. ., ~ seriously. thank you, mr speaker. surel the seriously. thank you, mr speaker. surely the essential _ seriously. thank you, mr speaker. surely the essential point - seriously. thank you, mr speaker. surely the essential point here - seriously. thank you, mr speaker. surely the essential point here is i surely the essential point here is that the government is not proposing to ban any organisation, however extreme, from operating legally and within the law. rather to identify those organisations that should be barred from receiving funding or other support from the government. now, the government hasn't shared

the intelligence with the security community, proposals. any point i make now is personal to me. does the minister agree that in any democratic society, there is a right to decide which bodies you will associate with and which you won't? that is why the labour party was quite right to ban no fewer than seven extreme left organisations since july 20 20 seven extreme left organisations sincejuly 20 20 from being compatible with labour party membership in accordance with the values as defined quite properly by its own national executive committee. i its own national executive committee.— its own national executive committee. i thank my right honourable _ committee. i thank my right honourable friend _ committee. i thank my right honourable friend who - committee. i thank my right honourable friend who has l committee. i thank my right honourable friend who has a j honourable friend who has a distinguished record in this area, he is absolutely right. there is a very high threshold for prescription of organisations, one that we are not seeking to ban or restrict of these organisations in a free society, we are seeking gloom at

making clear that it would be wrong to use taxpayers money or public endorsement for these organisations. in the statement the secretary of state refers to our definition draws on the work of the government's independent review of social cohesion and the metropolitan police commissioner, in the home affairs report on the policing of protests, we said this. we said it is surprising that and have not yet responded to the report it commissioned from the commissioner from countering extremism regarding hateful extremism, particular report operating in impunity. and sirjohn saunders in his report said that the home office should respond as a matter of urgency, from what has happened today and is moving away from the home office, you have had any conversations with the home

office about if there will be a full response to what the report set out? and also how this new definition will affect the policing of protest? very important points, and i have the opportunity to discuss our work with dame zahra and sir mark. of course, i work closely with the home secretary, particularly, inframing the definition. this shared between my department and the home office. the support scheme is responsible for supporting the police, we are responsible for funding the community organisations in encouraging and greater degree of social cohesion and resilience. there will be further responses to some of the recommendations in that report, and indeed in m sara's report, and indeed in m sara's report, which will be forthcoming, and i hope i will have the opportunity alongside the home secretary to share further details

ahead. .,