At PMQs the other day, David Cameron asked why the government hasn’t banned the Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir. The Tory website explains Cameron’s stance (and provides a link the to BBC video of PMQs) here. Gordon Brown responded by saying there had to be “evidence”; and the former Home Secretary John Reid weighed in later to say he’d already looked into this and concluded there wasn’t enough evidence. He also said, revealingly, that it was no good banning them and then having that decision reversed by the courts. Clearly the government concluded at some point in the last couple of maglie calcio poco prezzo years that it might well be successfully challenged, if it did proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
I just want to show you the relevant legislation, really: I’m afraid the statute law database hasn’t caught up yet with amendments to the Terrorism Act 2000, so you’ll have to do a bit of mental jigsaw work here, but reading section 3 together with section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2006, it’s clear that Jacqui Smith can only proscribe them if she believes they are “concerned in terrorism”, for instance by participating in terrorism, preparing for it, promoting or encouraging it (which includes glorifying or praising it). Of course her belief would have to be reasonable, in order for the decision to stand if a refusal to deproscribe is challenged by appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, under section 5 of the 2000 Act. That’s where the need for evidence comes in. So, is there evidence that Hizb-ut-Tahrir encourages http://www.nflauthenticjersey.com/ terrorism, or praises it – bearing in mind the definition of terrorism in section 1 of the 2000 Act?
David Cameron clearly thinks it says Jews should be killed wherever they are found – I don’t know where he gets that quotation from. HuT does have a website, though, where you can check up what they say publicly. I suspect they’re being quite careful to avoid saying easily “proscribable” things.
Leave a comment