The UK has announced it is working on a new, broader definition of extremism that will cover groups that until recently even worked with the government, a tacit admission that Britain has been funding and providing succour to Islamist groups for years.

Conservative minister Michael Gove addressed the Commons on Thursday, reassuring the public that the United Kingdom is “stronger because of our diversity” even if that is now “under challenge” from extremists. Unveiling a new definition of the term, he said, will increase scrutiny and stop the government from inadvertently supporting such groups in the course of misguided community outreach. In particular, Gove said the definition would cover groups that do not technically break the law, but which nevertheless agitate against liberal democracy.

“Most extremist materials and activities are not illegal and do not lead to terrorism or the national security threshold. For instance, Islamist and Neo-Nazi groups in Britain are operating in Britain lawfully, but they advocate and work towards the replacement of democracy with an Islamist or Nazi society,” he said.

Gove named five organisations as examples of such groups, three Islamist and two Neo-Nazi. Of the Islamists, he cited the Muslim Association of Britain, Guantánamo Bay campaigners CAGE, Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), and of the Nazis he spoke of Patriotic Alternative and the 1960s-era white supremacist group the British National Socialist Movement.

In naming groups from just two extremes, Gove appeared to be presenting a perceived dichotomy of extremism, yet despite recent warnings from the government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption on the left-wing threat, no such groups have yet been cited. Lord Walney had cautioned that far-left groups were making an “unholy alliance” with radical Islamists, and there is presently a “gap in the government’s understanding of damage that the anti-democratic far-Left can do… They are now at the forefront of the threat to our democratic institutions.”

A fuller list of extremist groups that fall under the new definition will be released “in the coming weeks”, a government spokesman said after Gove finished his speech.

Perhaps the most remarkable part of the announcement was the tacit admission from Gove that the government had been funding and supporting extremist groups for many years, giving Islamist groups the veneer of respectability through their interactions with state bodies. Gove said it is “critically important” that the state should not unwittingly fund extremists.

He said:

…in a considerable number of cases organisations and individuals with views which are clearly extreme have nevertheless benefitted from state engagement, endorsement, and support, and furthermore have exploited that association to further their extreme agendas. Among the most significant was Shakeel Begg, who was labelled an Islamist extremist by a judge. Mr Begg, an NHS chaplain and regular speaker at state schools ran Lewisham Islamic centre and was on both the Metorpolian Police’s independent advisory group in Lewisham and Lewisham Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education.

In 2016 Mr Begg sued the BBC when they described him accurately as an extremist. The judge… [identified] many occasions where Mr Begg had advocated extreme positions including promoting and encouraging religious violence by telling a Muslim audience that violence in support of Islam would constitute a man’s greatest deed… figures of potential extremism concern have been able to work with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police, court charities, and indeed benefit from public funding.

The Jewish Chronicle reported in 2023 that Begg’s Lewisham Islamic Centre received £540,000 ($690,000) in “local authority grants” between 2015 and 2020, something Lewisham Council disputes.

While the new extremism definition has not yet been published by the government, Gove was sure in his speech to say what it would not cover, including “gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech”. He was also keen to express that the government drew a clear line between Islam and Islamism, saying:

Islamism should never be confused with Islam. Islam is a great faith, a religion of peace that provides spiritual nourishment to millions and inspires countless acts of charity, and celebrates virtues and generosity, compassion and kindness. Islamism is a totalitarian ideology which seeks to divide, calls for the establishment of an Islamic state governed by Sharia law, and seeks the overthrow of liberal democratic principles.

It has its roots in the thinking in the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan Albana, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami Abdul Abul Ala Maududi, and the Islamic Brotherhood Sayyid Qutb. The Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is, of course, Hamas.

Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, which is the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups such as CAGE and MEND give rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views. We will be holding these and other organisations to account to assess if they meet our definition of extremism.

Careful definitions or not, the government has been criticised by free speech campaigners for creating for the government a “powerful weapon” that could be easily abused by future administrations and the civil service to lock out their political enemies. Toby Young, journalist and Director of the Free Speech Union stated his belief that the true purpose of the new definition is to “stop Islamic radicals embedding themselves in organs of the state”, but to prevent accusations of Islamophobia was forced to expand its remit to other areas as well.

Young expressed his concern: “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… which I cannot help being intensely suspicious of.”

Conservative Member of Parliament Kit Malthouse noted that the changes do not include an appeal process, warning of a “chilling impact” to groups put on a “government blacklist”. Also speaking in Parliament after Gove’s speech was Tory Sir Edward Leigh, who said he was concerned about erosions of the “right to offend” in a free country.

The plan has also been attacked from the left, with London Mayor Sadiq Khan warning the policy could drive some groups underground, which appears to at least partially be the point. The Guardian reports he said: “My concern is some of the people we engage with in some of our programmes, which work with young people, whether it’s those who may be going down the path of the extreme far-right, whether it’s those who may be going down the path of the Islamist … My worry is by labelling these groups, many local authorities, mayors, public authorities won’t engage with them and they’ll go underground.”