Groups covered by the definition, which is designed to include conduct that falls short of criminality, but is still deemed “unacceptable”, will be denied access to government funding and prevented from meeting ministers and officials or gaining a platform that could “legitimise” them. 

However, the policy has attracted criticism from charities, human rights groups and opposition parties, as well as Tory MPs. 

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International’s chief executive, labelled the expansion of the definition a “dangerous gimmick”, that had come in the wake of protest calling for a ceasefire.

He said: “From the Prime Minister’s disturbing Downing Street speech earlier this month, the introduction of further anti-protest measures and now the expansion of the extremism definition, it looks as if the government is set on shrinking the space for dissenting views and the right to protest.

“An overwhelmingly peaceful protest movement seeking an end to Israel’s mass killing of civilians in Gaza is being used by ministers to clamp down on our civil liberties, the irony is crushing and frightening.

“This attempt to stigmatise legitimate, peaceful political activity is taking us further down the road toward authoritarianism. This expansion will lead to further misuse and discrimination. Today’s announcement is a dangerous gimmick and this whole enterprise should be abandoned.”

The Muslim Council of Britain also attacked the proposals as “flawed”, warning they were “undemocratic, divisive, and potentially illegal” and “may involve defining established Muslim organisations as extremist”. 

Labour has claimed the new definition raises more questions than answers and was “very unusual”.

Shadow Treasury minister Darren Jones told the BBC: “The slight confusion really is that the government has focused on this definition today, which is not in relation to the counter-extremism strategy, which is now nine years out of date. It’s not an action plan for agencies and others about what action they should take in communities across the country. It’s not even a legal definition.

“All it really does is prevent the government from financing organisations or individuals. That rather implies that Michael Gove is worried they’re doing that at the moment, which raises more questions than he’s been able to answer this morning.”

Mr Gove insisted the definition would not impact free speech.

He told the Commons: “Our definition will not affect gender critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech.

“The government is taking every possible precaution to strike a balance in drawing up the new definition between protecting fundamental rights and safeguarding citizens.”  By Alexander Brown, The Scotsman