Are we being ‘poisoned’ by extremism? The Prime Minister seems to think so. His speech on the steps of Downing Street following the Rochdale by-election described a country where values of tolerance and civility were being deliberately undermined by Islamists and the far right. ‘Islamist extremists and the far right feed off and embolden each other,’ he warned. But in conflating those two threats, the Prime Minister made the same mistake as his predecessors.

Jews, with no connection to what is happening in Gaza, are terrified by the uptick in hatred against them

Sunak followed the script, endorsed by too many institutions in Britain, that the big threat to our way of life comes in two equal halves. Yet treating the far right and Islamist terror as two sides of the same coin defies all the realities of who is in custody, who is in the graveyard and what makes up 75 per cent of the terror caseload. The equity obsession seems designed to comfort the sensibilities of a progressive audience rather than respond to what the data says. Islamist extremism is by some margin the biggest terrorist threat in this country. Sunak could, and should, have been much clearer on this point, about the extremism that has rocketed levels of antisemitic hate and infiltrated both pro-Palestinian marches and our electoral process. Seeking to leaven these uncomfortable facts with false equivalence is dangerous.

A few days on from Sunak’s speech, we are beginning to see the state’s response to his statement. Michael Gove, who has a long history of raising the alarm on Islamist violence, has been tasked with re-examining the Government’s definition of what constitutes extremism. At the moment, the decade-old definition of the problem contained in our Prevent counter-extremism strategy is ‘vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ Reviewing the words and their operation in practice is a perfectly understandable reaction to recent events, but fraught with danger. Jews in this country, with no connection to what is happening in Gaza, are terrified by the uptick in hatred against them after the Hamas atrocity on 7 October. It’s worth remembering that people were out on the streets celebrating the rape, torture, murder and abduction of Israeli citizens long before the Israeli Defence Forces responded. Schools and synagogues are guarded round the clock to prevent people mobilised by a tsunami of online hatred attacking them. This is an example of extremist behaviour that should be absolutely intolerable in our country, not merely commonplace. But redrawing the line between non-violent and violent extremism which the proposed review will seek to do risks inflaming tensions. Go too far in extending the list of organisations and people now thought to be fostering extremism and therefore subject to sanctions and you risk criminalising ‘harmful’ thoughts and an assault on free expression and assembly vital to our democratic life. It cannot ever be illegitimate for people in this country to protest about what is happening in Gaza within the law. Don’t go far enough and cynics will see this as a performative nod to the electorate without meaning beyond the £31 million to protect MPs who have belatedly woken up to what is happening on our streets.

The Prime Minister’s call out to British people to defend the decency, tolerance and empathy from attack by extremists is striking and sincerely meant. But there are two other unpalatable truths at work here that must be answered too. The first is the rejection of mainstream politics by the people of Rochdale. Whatever the bizarre and unedifying details of how George Galloway got elected, he has cultivated a growing sense of disconnection between traditional politics and street level realities.

The second is the sense that Sunak is treating the symptoms of a malaise that is, in fact, deeply rooted in the failure of our institutions over many years to define and oppose Islamist extremism, often for fear of being labelled racist or ‘Islamophobic’. When that timidity extends to the Speaker of the Commons subverting the business of the House for fear of terrorist violence, we know we have a very big problem.

France was galvanised into action against extremism by the horror of Samuel Paty

France’s concept of ‘laïcité’ – the strict separation of religion and state – is hardly perfect, but at least it lays a foundation for the dominance of secular values over religion. We could learn something from this approach, which gives the French the means to restrict religious expression in public places. Following Islamist terrorist outrages in France, culminating in October 2020 with the beheading of the teacher Samuel Paty, Emmanuel Macron brought in a plethora of new laws designed to strengthen republican principles. These included closing faith schools, strict monitoring of the finances of Islamic organisations, the removal of foreign Imams fomenting extremism and restrictions on religious clothing in state employees. Tellingly, these controversial laws were framed as a way to free Muslims from the grip of radical extremists who were operating with almost total impunity. The move against extremism was explicitly about supporting moderate and secular Muslims to fill a space colonised by intolerance, bigotry and violence.

The concept of laïcité cannot be easily applied to this country with our unwritten constitution and a formal relationship between Church and State. Perhaps, though, we can learn from the principles for help in shaping the society-wide response that our present troubles require.

Gove must proceed with caution and restraint, but events on the ground demand that the authority of the state as a guarantor of civil discourse, public safety and lawful protest is restored. The people working hard to undermine that contract are desperate for a draconian response. They must not be rewarded.

France was galvanised into action against extremism by the horror of Samuel Paty. We must not wait for a similar impetus to respond here. It is very late in the day.