Dr Paul Stott is the Head of Security and Extremism at Policy Exchange
Monday 15 January turned out to be a genuine blue Monday for officials, members, and supporters of the international Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT). The Home Secretary has laid a draft order before parliament to seek its proscription. If agreed, this would see the organisation banned as early as 19 January.
This is welcome news. After the murderous attacks by Hamas on Israel, Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s Central Media Office in Beirut made clear its support. An English-language statement declared both endorsed Hamas’s actions, and advertised a demonstration in London:
“In light of the heroic feats carried out by the Mujahideen in the Blessed Land – Palestine under the slogan Al-Aqsa Flood against the usurping Jewish entity, which continues and persists in its ongoing assault on the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and its siege and bombing that has continued for 17 years on the Gaza Strip, Hizb ut Tahrir / Britain is organizing a demonstration.”
It was at that protest on 21 October 2023 where demonstrators were notoriously filmed shouting for jihad. The Metropolitan Police appears to have been poorly advised at the time, and the refusal of the Crown Prosecution Service to test in court exactly what the protestors meant by those cries of ‘jihad’, led to considerable government and public concern. The Home Secretary’s statement makes clear that HuT has brought proscription upon itself:
“Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks. Proscribing this terrorist group will ensure that anyone who belongs to and invites supports for them will face consequences. It will curb Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ability to operate as it currently does.”
So far, so good. But we have been here before. Policy Exchange has tracked counter-extremism policies towards HuT since 2006, when leaked government documents were reproduced in Martin Bright’s report ‘When progressives treat with reactionaries.’ These noted that the then Labour government was divided on whether to proscribe HuT. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was in favour, Home Secretary Charles Clarke, against. Fast forward to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition, and HuT was again facing a ban, only for it to never quite materialise.
One explanation for this is the organisation’s rather middle-class and professional composition. It has tended to invite comparison less with Al-Qaeda or Islamic State, as with the Socialist Workers Party. Its campaign focus – the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East, and support for military coups in Muslim-majority nations to install properly Islamic governments – has at times placed it some way to the back of the grievance-driven narratives that have powered rival groups jostling for influence in what is a rather overcrowded British Islamist scene.
HuT’s political agitation on the streets of London since 7/10, and an increasingly high media profile, had given it a new centre of gravity. The Home Secretary has rather dramatically upended that progress. Yet some real difficulties remain.
In 2019, Home Secretary Sajid Javed proscribed the political wing of Hezbollah. In 2021, the political wing of Hamas met the same fate, courtesy of Priti Patel. In both cases, limited action followed, and proscription appears to have become either an end in itself or a type of glass ceiling.
In the 2023 independent review of Prevent, William Shawcross noted the failure of the Home Office’s Research Information and Communications Unit (RICU) to produce an assessment of either Hezbollah or Hamas in this country. While the Home Office’s counter-extremism experts have cast their net ever wider when it comes to assessing elements of the broad right, a sense of purpose when it comes to getting a grip on Islamists has long been lacking.
If James Cleverly thinks he can light the touch paper, walk away, and watch the fireworks, he is very much mistaken. If the ban on HuT is to have any effect, it will be necessary in the coming weeks and months to get into the weeds of HuT, its leaders, and its footsoldiers. That will require an assessment of its properties, bank accounts, and investments in this country and overseas, and HuT’s connections to charities, businesses, and professional institutions.
Where the law has potentially been broken, the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service must then investigate and prosecute; there can be no excuses now for inaction.
Dr Paul Stott is the Head of Security and Extremism at Policy Exchange
Monday 15 January turned out to be a genuine blue Monday for officials, members, and supporters of the international Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT). The Home Secretary has laid a draft order before parliament to seek its proscription. If agreed, this would see the organisation banned as early as 19 January.
This is welcome news. After the murderous attacks by Hamas on Israel, Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s Central Media Office in Beirut made clear its support. An English-language statement declared both endorsed Hamas’s actions, and advertised a demonstration in London:
“In light of the heroic feats carried out by the Mujahideen in the Blessed Land – Palestine under the slogan Al-Aqsa Flood against the usurping Jewish entity, which continues and persists in its ongoing assault on the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and its siege and bombing that has continued for 17 years on the Gaza Strip, Hizb ut Tahrir / Britain is organizing a demonstration.”
It was at that protest on 21 October 2023 where demonstrators were notoriously filmed shouting for jihad. The Metropolitan Police appears to have been poorly advised at the time, and the refusal of the Crown Prosecution Service to test in court exactly what the protestors meant by those cries of ‘jihad’, led to considerable government and public concern. The Home Secretary’s statement makes clear that HuT has brought proscription upon itself:
“Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks. Proscribing this terrorist group will ensure that anyone who belongs to and invites supports for them will face consequences. It will curb Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ability to operate as it currently does.”
So far, so good. But we have been here before. Policy Exchange has tracked counter-extremism policies towards HuT since 2006, when leaked government documents were reproduced in Martin Bright’s report ‘When progressives treat with reactionaries.’ These noted that the then Labour government was divided on whether to proscribe HuT. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was in favour, Home Secretary Charles Clarke, against. Fast forward to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition, and HuT was again facing a ban, only for it to never quite materialise.
One explanation for this is the organisation’s rather middle-class and professional composition. It has tended to invite comparison less with Al-Qaeda or Islamic State, as with the Socialist Workers Party. Its campaign focus – the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East, and support for military coups in Muslim-majority nations to install properly Islamic governments – has at times placed it some way to the back of the grievance-driven narratives that have powered rival groups jostling for influence in what is a rather overcrowded British Islamist scene.
HuT’s political agitation on the streets of London since 7/10, and an increasingly high media profile, had given it a new centre of gravity. The Home Secretary has rather dramatically upended that progress. Yet some real difficulties remain.
In 2019, Home Secretary Sajid Javed proscribed the political wing of Hezbollah. In 2021, the political wing of Hamas met the same fate, courtesy of Priti Patel. In both cases, limited action followed, and proscription appears to have become either an end in itself or a type of glass ceiling.
In the 2023 independent review of Prevent, William Shawcross noted the failure of the Home Office’s Research Information and Communications Unit (RICU) to produce an assessment of either Hezbollah or Hamas in this country. While the Home Office’s counter-extremism experts have cast their net ever wider when it comes to assessing elements of the broad right, a sense of purpose when it comes to getting a grip on Islamists has long been lacking.
If James Cleverly thinks he can light the touch paper, walk away, and watch the fireworks, he is very much mistaken. If the ban on HuT is to have any effect, it will be necessary in the coming weeks and months to get into the weeds of HuT, its leaders, and its footsoldiers. That will require an assessment of its properties, bank accounts, and investments in this country and overseas, and HuT’s connections to charities, businesses, and professional institutions.
Where the law has potentially been broken, the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service must then investigate and prosecute; there can be no excuses now for inaction.