Michael Gove is back in the news, having come up with a new definition of extremism that he wants to roll out across Whitehall and beyond. Those captured by this definition, whether persons or groups, won’t be able to take up official roles or receive taxpayers’ money, with the primary purpose being to stop Islamic radicals embedding themselves in organs of the state. But in order to pass muster, both legally and politically, the definition cannot just catch immoderate Muslims in its net, so he’s had to come up with something universal – and therein lies the difficulty.

Is there a risk this new definition, which includes phrases like ‘aims to… negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others’, will also be applied to gender critical feminists, anti-abortion activists and other bêtes noires of metropolitan radicals? The answer is ‘yes’, given that the decision about who meets the definition will be left to civil servants, most of whom have been taught by Stonewall to regard anyone who dissents from progressive orthodoxy as beyond the pale. That might not be a danger while the present government remains in office, but given the likelihood of a Labour victory at the next election, Gove’s definition begins to look like a hostage to fortune.

Gove’s argument is that the current definition of extremism isn’t fit for purpose

On Monday I visited the 56-year-old Communities Secretary in his office to learn more about his plans. He was anxious to stress that the definition will be ‘non-statutory’, meaning it will be included in official guidance but not legislation. That’s probably just as well, since the last time a Tory government tried to legislate against extremism – in the aftermath of Lee Rigby’s murder – it had to abandon the attempt after huge opposition. Back then, the extremism the government wanted to ban was defined as ‘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’, as well as ‘calls for the death of members of our armed forces’.

That definition originated in the Prevent Strategy in 2011 and is still embedded in the Prevent duty guidance, which local authorities, schools, universities, the NHS, prisons and the police are expected to observe. What Gove is proposing to do is replace that definition with a less woolly one and ensure the Prevent duty, or something like it, applies across central government as well, effectively banning any person or group designated as extremist from participating in public life.

The fact he isn’t trying to legally prohibit the expression of extremist views, just stop them spreading instate institutions, means Gove can claim he isn’t trespassing on anyone’s civil liberties. Groups promoting ideologies that fall foul of the definition won’t be prevented from going on protests, he points out, which is both reassuring and slightly odd, given that part of the political impetus behind his initiative is wanting to quell public disquiet about the pro-Palestinian marches. And the fact he isn’t proposing to lock anyone up doesn’t mean his new definition won’t have a chilling effect on free speech. After all, there will still be a price to pay for expressing extremist opinions.

Gove’s response to these doubts is there are already penalties imposed on people designated as extremists according to the 2011 definition, such as being ‘referred’ to the Prevent support programme. We know from William Shawcross’s review of Prevent that it has failed to tackle Islamist ideology for fear of being labelled ‘Islamophobic’ and focused on ‘far-right’ extremism, which, according to newspaper reports, includes the views of Jacob Rees-Mogg.

So Gove’s argument is that the current definition isn’t fit for purpose and his will not only make it harder for Islamists to fly under the radar, but will also be less susceptible to being weaponised by apparatchiks to smear their political opponents. That may be true. But what’s to stop a Labour government tweaking it or deliberately misinterpreting so the focus swings back the other way? By extending the prohibition on extremists to all parts of the state, not just those currently within scope of Prevent, Gove could be handing his successors a dangerous weapon. On the other hand, I didn’t have a ready answer to his question to me: ‘What would you do instead?’

I left his office less sceptical, but not fully convinced. I’m still wedded to the common law principle that unless something is explicitly prohibited, it should be permitted. Like the 2011 definition of extremism, Gove’s new one falls into the ‘legal but harmful’ category, which I cannot help being intensely suspicious of.