so important today?— rob, tell us why this definition is so important today? because the government _ so important today? because the government says _ so important today? because the government says it _ so important today? because the government says it is _ so important today? because the government says it is going - so important today? because the government says it is going to i so important today? because the | government says it is going to use this definition to make a list of individuals and groups that essentially it doesn't want to do business any more with in terms of funding or in contact with them in terms of combating extremism in the uk. i should say, to get all of this in some kind of context, there is already an existing definition, and i've looked at it carefully, and it is not massively different to the old one, it is more specific about theissue old one, it is more specific about the issue of violence perhaps. if you like, the new element here is, and i will credit one of my bbc colleagues were coming up of this phrase, the new definition is to serve as a whitehall bouncer, whitehall being the government departments, and if you end up on this list of being an extremist person or extremist group, the government will be less inclined to do business with you. a whitehall bouncer. tells about do business with you. a whitehall bouncer. tells abou— do business with you. a whitehall bouncer. tells about some of their reactions to _ bouncer. tells about some of their reactions to this? _ bouncer. tells about some of their reactions to this? a _ bouncer. tells about some of their reactions to this? a lot _ bouncer. tells about some of their reactions to this? a lot of- bouncer. tells about some of their reactions to this? a lot of the - reactions to this? a lot of the reactions _ reactions to this? a lot of the reactions came _ reactions to this? a lot of the reactions came out _ reactions to this? a lot of the reactions came out before, i reactions to this? a lot of the i reactions came out before, and reactions to this? a lot of the - reactions came out before, and were here they hostile. whether they will be quite so hostile, i'm not so sure. we have got four groups of objections, and i will try and keep them brief. one is that the government has approached this on a divisive way, that it is not consulted with opposition politicians. the second critique is that there is a danger that you would include groups or individuals and those who don't deserve to be banned, they will be officials looking at this, looking at evidence, deciding whether a group will be banned, and the answer to thatis, will be banned, and the answer to that is, well, if you don't think you should be on the list, you will be able to ask for a judicial review. the third is that the state, the government, should essentially focus on people who are committing violence, they should focus on actions not on beliefs or ideologies. the state should use the intelligence services to focus like a laser on people who might commit an act of violence, rather than people promoting an ideology. the counter argument to that for the government, and this argument has existed since 2005 is, hang on a minute, people who commit violent acts have normally been subject to some kind of ideology that has made them prepared to do violence, and them prepared to do violence, and the last objection is that this would chill free speech, and the government's counter to that is saying this is not about a change of law, we are not bringing a new law with this definition, so anything it was ok to say before this new definition is still ok to say now, and the only restriction that you really have is whether you are violating existing laws about racial incitement, racial hatred, etc etc. what changes with this definition? what changes with this definition? what are the practicalities? the practicalities — what are the practicalities? tue: practicalities are what are the practicalities? tte: practicalities are that what are the practicalities? "tte: practicalities are that within what are the practicalities? tte: practicalities are that within the next couple of weeks, the government will set up this new centre of excellence in dealing with counterterrorism and counter extremism, and this group, these will be officials, not politicians, they will be tasked with finding out which groups should be government engage with and which it shouldn't engage with and which it shouldn't engage with. the significance here is that the government has a counter extremism programme, a couple called prevent and contest, and the broad task facing those programmes is to stop people from being radicalised. principally in this country, the major threat comes from islamic extremists, but also people on the far right stop the way in which this is important as these people, the groups are trying to counter extremist ideology, this might affect to the state could engage with, and say, yeah, can we have a bit of your help dealing with these people here? we are a bit worried they might become radicalised. that is a sense, the timescales a couple of weeks, we think. maybe it will take longerfor groups to of weeks, we think. maybe it will take longer for groups to be identified as groups the government doesn't want to engage with, and presumably some of those groups will say, hang on a minute, we shouldn't be on this group, that is unfair, and they will no doubt seek to contest it. t and they will no doubt seek to contest it— contest it. i 'ust want to point viewers to — contest it. i just want to point viewers to these _ contest it. i just want to point viewers to these life - contest it. i just want to point viewers to these life picturesl contest it. i just want to point i viewers to these life pictures we have up the screens. these are live pictures from the house of commons, where the communities secretary michael gove is due to unveil the government's new definition, updated definition, of extremism. we are expecting him to start speaking in the house and to take questions from mps. you mentioned that a list is expected to be published in a few weeks. if groups or individuals find themselves on that list, how can they challenge that decision? gimmick as i understand it, the avenue that will be open to them is judicial review. in other words, you will be able to refer this to a court to will be able to refer this to a courtt. will be able to refer this to a court tr , ., will be able to refer this to a courtt. ., ., , will be able to refer this to a courtt ., ., , , , court to say, our group has been put on this as a — court to say, our group has been put on this as a result _ court to say, our group has been put on this as a result of— court to say, our group has been put on this as a result of officials - on this as a result of officials looking through evidence of what members of the group have said, what the group's aims are. a government minister will then sign off and say, that person should be on the list, and the idea is that you should be able to contest this in front of a judge and say do you think this process has been fair, do you think this evidence stacks up? that is how i understand it, but no doubt we will get more details on that from michael gove, the minister responsible, in the next few minutes, hopefully! find responsible, in the next few minutes, hopefully! and there have been calls for— minutes, hopefully! and there have been calls for the _ minutes, hopefully! and there have been calls for the government - minutes, hopefully! and there have been calls for the government to i been calls for the government to update its definition for many years now. why has chosen to do so now? tt now. why has chosen to do so now? tit is now. why has chosen to do so now? tt is many years. i think if i am looking at the definition i looked up, it is 2011, so it is quite a long time ago. the argument that the government comes up with, the reason it says why it is doing all of this now, it is because of october the 7th attacks and a huge spike in anti—semitism, anti—semitic attacks since then, and attacks against muslims. the government thought and says it is a good idea to review, to tighten up as they would see it, the definition, to make it clear exactly what is unacceptable and then to begin the work of saying to government departments, we shouldn't engage with these particular people. interestingly, this is not a change of the law. it doesn't give the government new powers, and also really interesting way, it is quite limited in the sense that the government says this will not yet apply to nonessential government departments. sorry to sound like gobbledygook. basically, this does not apply to the police yet. the government can say, we don't want to deal with this group, but the police might still be able to do that, and other bodies which are part of the central government code. it is perhaps a bit less dramatic than it might first appear. certainly, at least, for now.— might first appear. certainly, at least, for now. you mentioned the olice. least, for now. you mentioned the police- that _ least, for now. you mentioned the police- that is _ least, for now. you mentioned the police. that is of _ least, for now. you mentioned the police. that is of great _ least, for now. you mentioned the police. that is of great concern - least, for now. you mentioned the police. that is of great concern to | police. that is of great concern to some people, because at the moment they have been tensions around the pro—palestinian marches that have been happening across the country, and whether this definition might impact the abilities of people to protest, but also whether the police would be able to engage in some of these groups? t would be able to engage in some of these grows?— would be able to engage in some of these u-rous? ~ these groups? i think the government is makin: these groups? i think the government is making the — these groups? i think the government is making the argument _ these groups? i think the government is making the argument that - these groups? i think the government is making the argument that this - these groups? i think the government is making the argument that this is i is making the argument that this is entirely separate, it is not about policing marches, it is not about preventing people from seeing what they want, providing it is within they want, providing it is within the law, and protesting. the whole issue with marches, the government would say, is up to the police, when the police think that people on these marches are breaking existing laws. as i said, this is not going on the statute, this does not create a new law. this is much more, i guess the way the government will try and put it is, this is not about day—to—day policing, it is not about individuals saying whatever they want to say within the law, it is about the underlying... the government will argue that in order to prevent extremism and violence, you probably want to try and tackle the kind of people that are putting out the ideology, the belief system, whatever, that would give nourishment and enable people to make that transition and become radicalised and considered violence. seeing as we have got the time, i said this policy goes back some time, and it does, because the origins of it are in the attacks on the london transport system in 2005 by islamic extremists. in the wake of that, the then labour government, under tony blair, had a decision to make. did it want to pretty much entirely focused the state's resources on what counterterrorism officials thought were 2000 3000 islamic extremists in britain who genuinely posed a threat of violence, or did they broaden out the policy to say, actually, we want to make sure that young people tempted by these ideologies, and so they created these wider programmes, prevent and contest, to try and make sure people, young people, were not attracted to radical beliefs, policies, actions, whether they were radical extremist ones, islamic or more recently from the far right. this is also important because questions around extremism have really been at the forefront of political debate at the moment. absolutely. one of the really striking differences, showing my age, going back to 2005 when i was a defence and security correspondent, is that times are rather different politically. if i think back to 2005, when labour was in government and the conservatives were in opposition, there was quite a high degree of unity about, ok, there's a problem we think with extremism in this country, we need to prevent further attacks, this country, we need to prevent furtherattacks, how this country, we need to prevent further attacks, how do we do this? there is quite a lot of consensus in that you had to deal with these things sensibly, but there was a real challenge. if we think of the last few months, we've had lots of chats about issues, whether it is islamophobia or anti—semitism, we are living in fraught and angry times, and rather than the serving brought britain's political parties together to say, ok, let's talk through this, if anything, the problems we have had these last few months have, if anything, exacerbated party differences. it is a rather different political landscape to what it was in 2005. tt landscape to what it was in 2005. if you could stay with us as we wait for the communities secretary to address the house, unveiling the government's new, updated definition of extremism, in the meantime we are going to get some of the reaction that there has been throughout the day to this updated definition. a rabbi is the elite of progressive judaism. he said —— she said it will make it difficult for communities to speak to each other. t make it difficult for communities to speak to each other.— speak to each other. i worry is that this will make it _ speak to each other. i worry is that this will make it more _ speak to each other. i worry is that this will make it more difficult - speak to each other. i worry is that this will make it more difficult to l this will make it more difficult to talk _ this will make it more difficult to talk. already, it is a difficult environment for communities who live side by— environment for communities who live side by side, _ environment for communities who live side by side, and in other moments have _ side by side, and in other moments have managed have really good sharing — have managed have really good sharing of resources, cheering and sopporting — sharing of resources, cheering and supporting their communities, and even _ supporting their communities, and even time — supporting their communities, and even time just to eat and share food together, _ even time just to eat and share food together, in— even time just to eat and share food together, in the current circumstances they are finding it really _ circumstances they are finding it really difficult to meet. the worries _ really difficult to meet. the worries this adds fuel to the fire and makes it even more difficult for those _ and makes it even more difficult for those communities define spaces be togethen _ those communities define spaces be touether. ., ., those communities define spaces be touether. . ., ~ those communities define spaces be touether. . . ~ , together. zara musker med is the secretary general _ together. zara musker med is the secretary general of _ together. zara musker med is the secretary general of the - together. zara musker med is the secretary general of the muslim i secretary general of the muslim council of the united kingdom. she expressed her concerns. greek muslim communities are concerned about being unfairly targeted. we feel michael gove is playing politics with extremism. _ michael gove is playing politics with extremism. this— michael gove is playing politics with extremism. this isn't- michael gove is playing politics i with extremism. this isn't illegal criminaiising _ with extremism. this isn't illegal criminalising of— with extremism. this isn't illegal criminalising of groups, - with extremism. this isn't illegal criminalising of groups, but - with extremism. this isn't illegal criminalising of groups, but it. with extremism. this isn't illegall criminalising of groups, but it was the government— criminalising of groups, but it was the government will— criminalising of groups, but it was the government will be _ criminalising of groups, but it was the government will be putting i the government will be putting together— the government will be putting together to _ the government will be putting together to label— the government will be putting together to label who- the government will be putting together to label who it - the government will be putting together to label who it deemsj the government will be putting. together to label who it deems to the government will be putting - together to label who it deems to be extreme _ together to label who it deems to be extreme we — together to label who it deems to be extreme. we have had _ together to label who it deems to be extreme. we have had reports- together to label who it deems to be extreme. we have had reports that i extreme. we have had reports that this is— extreme. we have had reports that this is going — extreme. we have had reports that this is going to— extreme. we have had reports that this is going to be _ extreme. we have had reports that this is going to be impacting - extreme. we have had reports thatl this is going to be impacting muslim community— this is going to be impacting muslim community groups _ this is going to be impacting muslim community groups and _ this is going to be impacting muslim community groups and palestinian l community groups and palestinian advocacy— community groups and palestinian advocacy groups. _ community groups and palestinian advocacy groups, groups - community groups and palestinian advocacy groups, groups like - advocacy groups, groups like ourselves _ advocacy groups, groups like ourselves. the _ advocacy groups, groups like ourselves. the muslim - advocacy groups, groups like i ourselves. the muslim council advocacy groups, groups like - ourselves. the muslim council of britain, _ ourselves. the muslim council of britain, which _ ourselves. the muslim council of britain, which has _ ourselves. the muslim council of britain, which has been - ourselves. the muslim council of britain, which has been around . ourselves. the muslim council of. britain, which has been around for 26 years— britain, which has been around for 26 years has— britain, which has been around for 26 years has been _ britain, which has been around for 26 years has been actively- britain, which has been around for| 26 years has been actively working with faith — 26 years has been actively working with faith communities _ 26 years has been actively working with faith communities to - 26 years has been actively working with faith communities to tackle i with faith communities to tackle inequalities, _ with faith communities to tackle inequalities, social— with faith communities to tackle inequalities, social media - with faith communities to tackle i inequalities, social media mobility, fightback— inequalities, social media mobility, fightback covid, _ inequalities, social media mobility, fightback covid, —— _ inequalities, social media mobility, fightback covid, —— social— inequalities, social media mobility, fightback covid, —— social mobility, | fightback covid, —— social mobility, and so _ fightback covid, —— social mobility, and so it— fightback covid, —— social mobility, and so it is— fightback covid, —— social mobility, and so it is quite _ fightback covid, —— social mobility, and so it is quite worrying - fightback covid, —— social mobility, and so it is quite worrying that i and so it is quite worrying that groups— and so it is quite worrying that groups like _ and so it is quite worrying that groups like us— and so it is quite worrying that groups like us could _ and so it is quite worrying that groups like us could also - and so it is quite worrying that groups like us could also be i and so it is quite worrying that| groups like us could also be on and so it is quite worrying that i groups like us could also be on this list. ., groups like us could also be on this list. . ., ., ., list. earlier, radio 5 live asked listeners whether _ list. earlier, radio 5 live asked listeners whether they - list. earlier, radio 5 live asked listeners whether they are i list. earlier, radio 5 live asked i listeners whether they are worried about issues. he was what they had to say. mr; about issues. he was what they had to sa . y .., . about issues. he was what they had to sa . g _, . , about issues. he was what they had tosa. , ., , to say. my concern is that it is auoin to say. my concern is that it is going way _ to say. my concern is that it is going way too _ to say. my concern is that it is going way too far. _ to say. my concern is that it is going way too far. you i to say. my concern is that it is l going way too far. you mention people are going on protest, there are over a million people in these protests, there is a must win for the odd person who is doing something —— there is always going to be the odd person who is doing something they shouldn't. but we have that at football matches. we don't ban football matches when people are out of order. it is curtailing on freedom to express ourselves. irate curtailing on freedom to express ourselves-— curtailing on freedom to express ourselves. ~ . ., , ., ., ourselves. we have a situation where if we complain _ ourselves. we have a situation where if we complain about _ ourselves. we have a situation where if we complain about something i ourselves. we have a situation where if we complain about something we i if we complain about something we are called _ if we complain about something we are called racist, or we are called ageist, _ are called racist, or we are called ageist, or— are called racist, or we are called ageist, orwe are called racist, or we are called ageist, or we are called sexist. there — ageist, or we are called sexist. there is— ageist, or we are called sexist. there is always something that we are branded as as soon as we go to speak— are branded as as soon as we go to speak our— are branded as as soon as we go to speak our mind. if it doesn't fall in line _ speak our mind. if it doesn't fall in line with _ speak our mind. if it doesn't fall in line with what people, not necessarily the majority are saying, but when _ necessarily the majority are saying, but when we have people that say that they — but when we have people that say that they want to do this, if you criticise — that they want to do this, if you criticise it. _ that they want to do this, if you criticise it, then you are accused of being — criticise it, then you are accused of being something or the other. if of being something or the other. if you of being something or the other. you look at of being something or the other. if you look at the protests, many different — you look at the protests, many different people _ you look at the protests, many different people from - you look at the protests, many different people from many i different people from many communities— different people from many communities are _ different people from many i communities are represented, different people from many - communities are represented, and they are _ communities are represented, and they are saying _ communities are represented, and they are saying it _ communities are represented, and they are saying it is _ communities are represented, and they are saying it is anti—semitic, i they are saying it is anti—semitic, and the _ they are saying it is anti—semitic, and the jewish _ they are saying it is anti—semitic, and the jewish people _ they are saying it is anti—semitic, and the jewish people are - they are saying it is anti—semitic,| and the jewish people are saying, they are saying it is anti—semitic, i and the jewish people are saying, we do not _ and the jewish people are saying, we do not want — and the jewish people are saying, we do not want a — and the jewish people are saying, we do not want a religion _ and the jewish people are saying, we do not want a religion hijacked - and the jewish people are saying, we do not want a religion hijacked by. do not want a religion hijacked by what _ do not want a religion hijacked by what is _ do not want a religion hijacked by what is going _ do not want a religion hijacked by what is going on— do not want a religion hijacked by what is going on in— do not want a religion hijacked by what is going on in the _ do not want a religion hijacked by what is going on in the middle i do not want a religion hijacked by. what is going on in the middle east. by what is going on in the middle east. by the _ what is going on in the middle east. by the extremist _ what is going on in the middle east. by the extremist islamist? - what is going on in the middle east. by the extremist islamist? no, i what is going on in the middle east. | by the extremist islamist? no, they are not _ by the extremist islamist? no, they are not. , . ,