Michael Gove has a reliable track record for sounding the alarm on ideological hatred, so are his latest proposals on redefining extremism a cure for what ails us? The communities secretary has unveiled a plan to broaden the definition of extremism. The new official meaning aims to ban those with a ‘violent or intolerant’ ideology from government links and funds.

Gove named several organisations that could fall foul of the new definition: the Muslim Association of Britain, Mend and Cage were groups, he told the Commons, that could be held to account. Predictably enough, critics have taken to the air to condemn this crackdown, seeing it variously as unnecessary, unwieldy or a downright descent into authoritarian bigotry. So who is right?

Islamist ideology poses a greater danger than neo-fascism

The proposals seem (mostly) sensible. Over the last decade, Gove has been in charge of ministries that have all been mired in accusations of timidity, or have simply been absent from the field in the battle to uphold liberal democratic ideals. In Education, Justice and now Communities, Gove has no doubt seen how we have become increasingly tolerant of intolerance. His new proposals will help identify people and organisations who are involved in undermining liberal democracy or destroying the rights and freedoms of others. Those singled out will be denied government platforms and cash. Most ordinary people will be dismayed that this crackdown has taken so long.

Only last year, William Shawcross, in his review of the Government’s Prevent early warning and intervention strategy for those at risk of becoming terrorists, identified, unbelievably, that Home Office officials were funding projects that were opposed to the programme. So I don’t hold the view that these proposals are a knee-jerk reaction to the Hamas atrocity of 7 October last year and the subsequent brutality of Israel’s response.

Indeed, in 2021, a paper co-authored by the current Commissioner of the Met Police, Sir Mark Rowley, argued that the criminal law needed to be expanded in response to violent extremists who were – and still are – operating with impunity. Gove’s proposals are more modest. No new laws will be created. Those identified won’t face any criminal sanction. They will still be able to continue to spout their views unmolested. Even so, they are unlikely to take this lying down: Cage has already signalled it will consider legal action. As bad as we are at scrutinising taxpayers’ money, we don’t publicly fund Cage, so it’s not clear what actual impact this particular fight will have. We are told an expert group of civil servants and academics will be assembled to decide on who is included. It may be a lawyers’ bonanza.

For all the drawbacks, there are plenty of reasons to support Gove’s campaign. People look to the Government to protect fundamental rights and values and these are taking an unprecedented battering. As someone who has been involved in counter-extremism work over the last decade, the rights of citizens to be protected from politically motivated mob violence are being trampled over to a greater degree than ever before.

The state should not be doing business with people who want its destruction

I come from Northern Ireland and have seen what happens when sectarian bigotry spills out of control into murderous violence. If this sounds like an old-fashioned perspective from thirty years ago, it’s not: three weeks ago, the Speaker of the House of Commons subverted the rules of parliament for fear that Labour MPs would be targeted by terrorists.

Gove’s modest proposals demonstrate that the state is finally alive to a dangerous degeneration of civility and discourse that is exploited by those on the extreme polarities – right, left and Islamist who, in their various ways, are united with the objective of violent insurrection. A responsible Government must use its powers to show that the shameless institutional timidity in the face of violent extremism, and those whose behaviour animates it, is at an end. In doing so, the proposals must allow for freedom of expression which is guaranteed in any case by the European Convention on Human Rights written into our domestic law. This is not an abstract issue. The Prime Minister’s address from Downing Street, which prefaced Gove’s initiative, was built on rocketing levels of antisemitic and anti-Muslim hate crime. Debate still rages about whether police have the stomach or the resources to enforce existing laws clearly being flouted on a weekly basis in central London. Endless contextualising and hand wringing must, at some point, give way to ‘enough is enough.’

There will be presentational problems along the way. In Britain, Islamist ideology poses a greater danger than neo-fascism. The likely result will be that more Islamist organisations are identified than the ragbag of neo-Nazis who sit on the far right and have little traction. But things can soon change and the far-right can seem attractive to those who think their valid concerns are not being listened to.

I fear we are reaping what we have sown in terms of a decade of indulging people and organisations that are incompatible with British values. We are the most successful multi-ethnic country on the face of the planet. Our gains in creating a nation at ease with itself are at serious risk of being reversed by those who want social segregation, defacto blasphemy laws and fearful minorities. The state should not be doing business with people who want its destruction. Gove’s proposals are a small step on a high wire, but in the right direction.