Muslim leaders slam UK government for Hizb ut-Tahrir ban

Hizb ut-Tahrir is not a terrorist group. It has a history of promoting non-violent struggle and has not been connected with any terrorist plots or activities. It is for these reasons that previous plans by both Blair and Cameron to ban the organisation had been shelved.

In moving to proscribe the organisation, the UK is demonstrating three things:

1. The lowering of the threshold for proscription in order to silence free speech.
2. Its subservience to Israeli policy.
3. Its desire to join the great bastions of freedom that have also banned the group — Russia, Bangladesh, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Germany.

To proscribe a group, the Home Secretary must believe that it is concerned in terrorism (not ‘has been concerned’). This means that he must believe that the group currently commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

The Home Secretary seems to have exploited the 'encourages terrorism' aspect of this by relying on a single press release by Hizb ut-Tahrir's branch in Palestine on 7 October 2023.

There are two important points to consider.

Firstly, this was not issued by Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain and there does not appear to be anything the government can point to that suggests HTB encouraged the operation or promoted terrorism generally. It was issued by a branch operating in Palestine where the Palestinians have been resisting apartheid and illegal military occupation for 75 years. Context matters.

Secondly, the press release was issued on the same day as the 7 October response. It would have been very late that night, and really on mid-late Sunday when news of the extent of what had happened came to light. It is telling that this press release refers only to military targets.

Is the ban proportionate?

Even if the group is deemed to be concerned in terrorism, the Home Secretary must determine whether proscribing it is proportionate.

In coming to that decision, he must consider:

1. The nature and scale of the organisation’s activities.
2. The specific threat that it poses to the UK.
3. The specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas.
4. The extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK.
5. The need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.

It is evident that it is the fifth factor that is the only consideration that matters in this decision.

Parliament will rubber-stamp the proscription as it has always done. These are parliamentarians who are so petrified of falling on the wrong side of Israel that, with thousands of children killed by Israel, they could not bring themselves to even vote for a ceasefire.

Once the proscription goes through, it will become an offence to express support for Hizb ut-Tahrir or to invite support for them. So if you do support HT, you have this week to say so without breaking the law. After that, there is no freedom of speech to have a mature conversation about the group without nasty trolls reporting you.

It will also be a criminal offence to arrange, manage, or assist in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of HT, or is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to HT.

Before everyone begins cancelling people they know who are HT members and supporters and stop meeting with them, please note:

A meeting for the purpose of the legislation is defined as involving three persons or more, so 1-on-1 meetings would not break the law.

The explanatory notes to the Terrorism Act 2000 also permit the arrangement of ‘genuinely benign’ meetings: a meeting at which the terrorist activities of the group are not promoted or encouraged.

How will this ban be policed?

Another concern will be the offence of wearing clothing or carrying articles in public or publishing an image of an article that arouses reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of HT. This will be very difficult to police as HT has adopted the Muslim shahada flag as its emblem. The same flag has been adopted by the present Afghan government.

A shahada frame or flag is a common feature in most Muslim households. It is a reminder of the most fundamental aspect of the Islamic faith, without which one cannot be a Muslim. The shahada are the first words uttered into the ears of a newborn and the final statement of a Muslim before death. For that reason, it is often seen on t-shirts, bandanas, jewellery, decoration pieces, and even draped over coffins being taken to the cemetery. Should we prepare for mass arrests?

It is incredible that at a time when 3,000 British citizens have travelled to Israel to participate in a genocidal military campaign against the Palestinian people — currently being considered by the World Court — Britain has once again demonstrated where its loyalties lie and moved to ban a non-violent group because its Palestinian branch issued a press release within hours of the 7 October response, praising the attack on military targets.