The unanimous ratification by the US Senate of the extradition treaty between our two countries early this weekend is welcome news and gives us a new tool in the struggle against terrorism and international crime.

It demonstrates to our doubters that the transatlantic alliance is just that — not a one-way street as some would have you believe. And it pays testament to the negotiating powers of Patricia Scotland, the minister I dispatched to argue our case with the Senate. This is important to our nation, because countering global terrorism requires global alliances in a common endeavour against a common enemy.

Any such alliance, if it is to be effective, must include the US. That doesn’t mean we agree with every ally every time on every point. We should tell George Bush when he’s wrong on climate change, on stem-cell research, on civil partnerships, on debt-financed unaffordable tax cuts.

Put simply in today’s context, you don’t have to love everything George W Bush stands for to hate everything that Osama Bin Laden stands for.

Whatever the nature of the alliances, we have to make sure our contribution is sound. That is why the prime minister has asked me to review in the light of our August experience Britain’s counterterrorist capacity. We agree that we need a radical step-change to ensure there is a seamless co-ordinated approach to the now seamless threat.

To counter radicalisation as a nation we need not only to tackle the immediate dangers but put in place the concept, doctrine, laws and capabilities for a challenge we expect will last a generation.

My guiding purpose is to reduce fear, to create opportunity, and as far as possible ensure security for everyone, especially the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. And in tackling the causes of anxiety I understand it is not just the threat from international terrorism that defines this age of uncertainty. The feeling of anxiety and related perception of unfairness is for many people related to the modern phenomenon of mass migration. This is as much about unfairness as it is about foreigners.

It isn’t fair when desperate people fleeing persecution who need asylum are put at risk because criminal gangs abuse an antiquated asylum system. It isn’t fair on British businesses or workers if they find their terms and conditions undermined by unscrupulous employers deliberately taking on cheap illegal labour. And it isn’t fair, or sensible, if in assessing immigration levels we don’t take into account the effects of immigration on schools, hospitals and housing.

So I’m putting fairness at the heart of everything we’re doing in the Home Office. That’s why I favour tighter immigration controls and ID cards. That’s why I want to establish an independent migration advisory committee to advise on how migration should be managed to the benefit of the country as a whole. All of this approach goes with, not against, the grain of the British sense of fairness and decency.

And in the same way, the public want to see more fairness in our approach to law and order.

People want to know that the government is on the side of the victim, not protecting the criminal. So, whether it is in fighting crime, managing immigration or countering terrorism, our approach ought to be underpinned by the fight for values, British values.

That’s why I went to Waltham Forest, to play my part in that debate. Since 9/11, I have argued that no religion, no political creed, no ideology has a monopoly on terrorism. This is not a clash of civilisations. It’s not Muslims versus the rest of us. Its evil terrorists on one side against all civilised people on the other.

There can be no compromise, no appeasement with terrorism. Muslims are our friends as well as our fellow citizens. They are owed our support. Because if we are going to ask the decent, silent majority of Muslim men — and women — to have the courage to face down the extremist bullies, then we need to have the courage and character to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in doing it.

So when the terrorists or their loud-mouthed sympathisers tell me that we won’t be allowed to raise our arguments in this or that part of our community, my answer is simple. Yes we will. This is Britain. There are, and there will be no “no-go areas” in our country for any of our people, whatever our background, colour or creed. We will go where we please, we will discuss what we like and we will never be browbeaten by bullies. That’s what it means to be British.

Of course, these attempts to bully or browbeat are all part of a wider struggle to break our spirit. That is the goal of terrorism: to break the spirit of their opponent by terror. So we must have the courage of our convictions. This is a time for standing up for what we believe. And I mean all of us, irrespective of party affiliation. I want to see the widest, deepest, national alliance.

That’s why I am genuinely saddened by the response of the opposition. I understand that David Cameron has not been in post long. The public may understand that he doesn’t want to rush to judgment on every decision. But he has to be capable of making some decisions. That is what leadership is all about. There are some issues so serious, so rooted in the very fibre of our national values that we need to make the hard choices now.

David Cameron may find that those who wait too long to see which way the wind is blowing get blown away by the gale. That is the challenge to David Cameron this weekend.