Abdullah al Andalusi – Vs Nigel Farage – Is protesting for Palestine EXTREMISM

			Good evening. Well, Michael Gove today laying out a new definition of what is extremism. Let's hear
what he had to say in the House of Commons earlier on today. The proposed definition will hold that
extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance,
that aims to negate or destroy the fundamental fundamental rights and freedoms of others, or
undermine overturn or replace the UK system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights
or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve these results.
		

			Well, I understand you know, that organizations, whether they're extreme right, or Islamist, that
are receiving government money shouldn't receive government money if they're spreading hatred, and
extremism. That's the one part perhaps, of this new definition that I agree with. But my concern is,
could this be open to abuse and what I think about it, you know, if you attempt to undermine
overturn or replace the UK system of liberal parliamentary democracy, what you could be branded and
extremist. And whilst that wouldn't make you a criminal, because this will not go into law that the
police are going to enforce it would take you out of public life? Well, I was elected 25 years ago,
		

			to the European Parliament on a ticket that said we should leave the European Union, my first day
there. So Stephen wall, he was the representative for the foreign office in the European Union, came
to my office sat with the three of us, from you, Kip that have been elected and said, gentleman,
what are your intentions, it was clear, he thought we were an extremist terrorist group. And that's
the worry with all of this. Even if you create a permissive environment for others, to achieve the
result of undermining democracy, or fundamental rights, I mean, that could mean that you perhaps
couldn't debate many issues on GB news, if some took those arguments, and went too far with them. So
		

			my concern with all of this is that I think it has the potential to be abused by governments that
want to shut down debate on issues that they don't like I think it is, we were told the new
definition would be less wooly. And yet, from what I can say, it's completely and utterly open
ended.
		

			I'm sure that everybody on all sides of the political debate will argue that they're being
victimized. But I think this is open genuinely to a shutting down of free speech, maybe not by this
government, but who knows what may come in the course of the following year. So tell me what you
think. Is it open to abuse? I'd love to get your views please Faraj at GB news.com.
		

			Now one member of parliament who was subjected to extremism, intolerable behavior was of course
Tobias Elwood, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Bournemouth east where a mob of 100 people
for several hours turned up outside his house, shouting and chanting, pretty hate filled messages to
us. Welcome back on the program. Two things really, one, I'd like to know what you think of this
definition and whether you share my reservations about how it might be used in the future. And
secondly, I don't think this definition actually helps MPs like you would stop people gathering
outside your house.
		

			Well, firstly, good evening. And interestingly, speaking about the European Union, you should
reflecting back on that going down memory lane, you and I agree on many things. And we both know
that you and I disagree on many things, but we do it in a way that allows us to disagree in a form
that allows debate to continue. I don't hate you for what you believe in. You don't hate me. We the
art of disagreeing remains strong between us. And that's so important. But that's not the case and
what we've seen over the last three or four months, and that's why there's this question that's
being raised, bigger question, fundamental question about who we are, what we stand for what it
		

			means to be British and to live here, what binds us together. And how do we defend our open and
tolerant way of life, our liberal parliamentary democracies as Michael Gove was just speaking about.
And since those deadly attacks by Hamas, on the seventh of October, tensions between communities
within communities have been rising here. We've seen rise in anti Muslim and anti semitism and
hatred, even the business to Parliament has been affected. And as you just touched on, MPs have been
targeted as well. It's led to that big speech by the Prime Minister outside Downing Street on the
first of March where he wants to address the spread of hate and division. And of course, Michael
		

			goes speech today. So that has a security implication. That's what it's about. Because there is
these extremist groups that freedom of expression is being suppressed actually, hatred is promoted.
And in the worst cases, the worst case is young. Those with a stand under
		

			standing of the crown are recruited, radicalized often online to carry out deadly terrorist attacks
here in the UK. So I would not want to see people like yourselves ever gagged in any sense. But I
hope you would agree there's also responsible use of freedom of speech. That's something that we
need to recognize to us. I absolutely agree with that. But the question is, does what is stated
here? Does it do the job?
		

			I think this is a an evolving conversation. And the fact that we're talking about it, nobody is on
this list yet is the has been put forward by Michael Gove very interesting to see Labour's response
as well today. They didn't condemn it in any way, they largely agreed with it. I think this is an
evolving conversation, we've gone through this very, very difficult period. And we have big
questions to answer. I never thought that we'd see legislation required to protect war memorials,
because nobody had ever challenged them before. We're now starting to do that. Because those
behaviors norms are being tested in all court forms of, of our society. And so important, then,
		

			therefore, we debate these things properly, and as a nation, decide what is right and what is wrong.
Okay, Tobias, thank you very much. Indeed, an evolving conversation is the view of Tobias Ellwood.
I'm joined in the studio by Abdullah Al Andalusi, the co founder of the Muslim debate initiative.
Welcome to the program and Toby young, the General Secretary of the Free Speech union.
		

			There are some that say that this definition that Michael Gove put out today is aimed at Muslim
groups. Do you believe that to be the case or not? I think it was spurred on by the the pro
Palestine protests that yeah, so mine did a ceasefire against the massacre and plausibly a genocide
against
		

			many would disagree with that. iCj review into the preview by the new but the issue is this that
everyone seems to have a short memory people don't remember the Countryside Alliance and the the
foxhunting demonstrations that ran riot in Parliament Square, they actually burst into parliament.
At one point, Simon Hart organized public harassment campaigns of the MPs and guess what his his
position now he's now chief whip on the Rishi Sunak. So the Conservative Party has no problem with
rallying the mob and using mob potential harassment of MPs as all part of democracy. But when it
comes to movements,
		

			why was that true? I was there Sure. On the countryside, man, no doubt.
		

			You can read as you like, that's fine. I was there. I was there on the countryside, march 406,000 of
us marched through London, there wasn't a single arrest. There was no disorder. There wasn't even a
piece of litter left behind and the difference here and yes, that I was involved in this. Not that I
haven't but I believe in people having the freedom to do within reason what they want. The
difference is the lobbying of those members of parliament wasn't intimidatory. What happened in
Parliament Square, the day that the SNP resolution was due to be debated, is MPs were frightened to
leave the building. So you denying that there was no right and palm square to the fact that I was.
		

			It was Paul, I was on the call. And that was actually called public harassment campaigns. If I was
there on that day, I was there on the big March. But we're not talking about when we're talking
about the record, you can check out if any group bursts in and behaves badly and threatens or
intimidates, it should be, of course, the law should be enforced by already my question to you
already happened. My question to you is do you think this definition of extremism is helpful or not?
No, it's if you brand something, which is to do with people's beliefs, that is not about inciting
violence, then this is for policing. And in the modern world, I often say that the term extremism,
		

			which is unhelpful term, at least the Americans have the wherewithal to say, countering violent
extremism, not just extremism, but using the term extremism today is like a is the modern secular
version of denouncing heresy and heretics. It's done. No, I get the point. It is dangerous. Yeah.
And it depends on how it's used. And I agree with you on that point. Toby young, free speech union.
		

			I'm really worried about this. I mean, I I do actually take our dollars point that people are
perfectly entitled to their opinions. They're perfectly entitled to let their elected
representatives know those opinions. It's a question whether it's done with intimidation, isn't it?
Yes. And clearly this definition of extremism.
		

			It doesn't just encompass people who we currently think of I think as extremists and who might be
captured by the criminal law. It's below the criminal law thresholds that falls into the legal
harmful gray area which is something as a free speech lobbyist. I'm obviously
		

			suspicious of I mean, I think the starting point and I think I disagree with Abdullah here is that
we do have a problem with Islamic extremism in this country. We see it in our city centers every
Saturday. I'm not saying everyone on the pro Palestinian point, do we have a problem with it? How is
demonstrating to stop the massacre of civilians in Gaza? Anything to do with extremism? I think I
think I think we'll go beyond it's a race, not everyone, or most protests could conceivably be
designated as extremist. But there are some extremists on those protests. So the people were not
extremists on the jacket, may well be true carrying jihadi flags. But if there are people that
		

			genuinely are extremists, the flags are inciting bad, bad behavior that we need to know about and
the police for arrest them. There's already existing legislation that that will stop defacing of
cenotaphs that will stop people from inciting violence and fighting racism that already exists. And
they don't need what, in some ways, maybe the data that points right. Do we need this definition?
Well, Mike, Mike, I've got I've got a sort of broad concern. And then a precise concern. My broad
concern is I'm not sure that there is a robust evidence based to suggest that if you define certain
groups as extremist, and you prevent them from participating in public life, which is essentially
		

			the strategy here, that that will actually counter extremism. It hasn't worked very effectively.
Before. In some cases, people can claim look, I'm on a banned list. I'm an extremist, according to
the Tory government that could actually enhance their appeal and make them more attractive, not less
attractive to vulnerable young men in danger of radicalization. So that's my broad concern. I'm not
sure this works as a strategy for countering extremism. My more precise concern, and this is
probably where we agree up to is that the definition I mean, the government can't come up with a
definition that just captures Islamic extremists, but nobody else that could be too easily
		

			challenged. And the government clearly thinks it's not just a problem with Islamic extremists. There
are some far right extremists, we should be worried about to the point to Nick Griffin's endorsement
of George Galloway, etc. But the problem is when they try and come up with a broader, more universal
definition of extremism, it then the risk is it's going to capture groups that none of us would want
to see banned from participation, no.
		

			Critical worry the worry with this, as to which groups are going to be deemed to be extremist or
perhaps which individuals will be deemed as its civil servants that will make the decision and that
worries me as well. Final thought, I think there's one organization that should be deemed to be
extreme. They want to clamp down upon people's right to demonstrate and the whole point of
demonstration is to give some kind of democratic pressure to politicians, the whole point of
demonstrations, why what's the point of them wants to clamp down, it wants to discriminate on
organizations, individuals based on their beliefs, which goes against the Human Rights Act, schedule
		

			one, which is what the D extremist definition is based upon, apparently, and this organization is
the British government, they follow their own definition. I think that may be scratching it.
		

			But anyway, I mean, I could be a real trouble because there's an organization out there called Hope
not hate, and they've just produced this state of hate 2024 report. And interestingly, they are
indirectly funded significantly by government money and their report this year. My I mentioned 56
times more than any other individual GPUs is mentioned page after page. And that's the other
problem, isn't it? You know, that. Actually, if you're not careful, you start to use the cover, and
the use of this word hate as a means of saying that, frankly, anyone who disagree with such should
simply be shut down. There are great risks to this. I think this is open to abuse. I'd rather sense
		

			that differing sides of this debate actually agree on some points. We have laws in place in this
country. You know, the police's job is to enforce them. Many feel they've not been doing their job
very, very well. I don't think this is helpful in any way at all. Mr. Gove. I don't think it's open
to abuse. Get your views after the break.