The HAMAS Case

INTRODUCTION

1. CAGE International (hereinafter CAGE) seeks to provide this submission to you, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (hereinafter SSHD), on behalf of our clients. The clients are people and organisations affected by the laws on proscription, who CAGE assists through casework and advocacy. For the purposes of this submission, the typologies of cases highlighted relate to accusations of support for Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah, the proscribed group commonly known as “Hamas”.

2. This submission provides anonymised accounts of the UK individuals, professionals and legal entities (such as charities) that have had their work and freedoms impinged on by excessive and draconian use of the proscription regime.

CLASSIFICATION OF CITIZENS AND LEGAL ENTITIES AFFECTED

3. There are two broad categories of people affected and which this report focuses on. They are:

• [Non-convicted] individual UK citizens and how they have been affected by section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “s.12 TA 2000” or “s.12”).

• Professionals that are under a regulator and how they are affected by regulatory action brought about because of their postings and engagements.

THE EFFECT OF PROSCRIPTION (1)

4. To exemplify each point, we use case studies from each area to highlight the issue raised by the legislation and the impact it has had. We provide a short synopsis of the case and thereafter deal with why the current legislation has caused the issues that require providing assistance to our clients.

5. This section focuses on individuals who have been affected by s.12 TA 2000. For the sake of completeness, the legislation states:

12 Support

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and

(b) the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).

[F1(1A) A person commits an offence if the person—

(a) expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and

(b) in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.]

(2) A person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is—

(a) to support a proscribed organisation,

(b) to further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or

(c) to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.

(3) A person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting and the purpose of his address is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or to further its activities.

(4) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2)(c) in respect of a private meeting it is a defence for him to prove that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the address mentioned in subsection (2)(c) would support a proscribed organisation or further its activities.

(5) In subsections (2) to (4)—

(a) “meeting” means a meeting of three or more persons, whether or not the public are admitted, and

(b) a meeting is private if the public are not admitted.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F214] years, to a fine or to both, or

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

6. Case Example – Teacher:

Facts: Ms L is a teacher at a secondary school in England. Her husband was arrested under s12 TA 2000, in relation to videos he posted about the ongoing genocide. These posts formed part of his wider activism and commentary on various social and humanitarian issues. Upon informing the school of her husband’s arrest, Ms L was told that they had no concerns and would accommodate her situation. Whilst initially appearing to be supportive of Ms L, the school subsequently invited her in for a formal meeting, during which they informed her that she had been made subject to a disciplinary investigation, and would be suspended immediately pending the outcome. This decision had been made due to her apparent re-posting of one of her husband’s social media posts. She was asked if she thought her husband was a terrorist.

Ms. L was never formally investigated by police for any offence or involvement in her husband’s case. The school was made fully aware of this fact. Despite this, they continued their investigation for almost a year, after which they allowed Ms L back to work subject to a year-long sanction.

1. Personal Impact: The lack of support she received from the school, impacted Ms L’s mental health and family life. She felt targeted and unduly criminalised by her employer and was reluctant to return to work as a result.

2. Legal Impact: The legislation in place under s.12 has been influencing internal disciplinary proceedings and procedures. Even though Ms L. was neither arrested nor charged with any offence, her personal and professional life has been significantly impacted. She has been unjustly targeted. This shows that the effect of the legislation does not remain limited to those arrested or investigated under it, but also extends to their families and wider communities who are viewed through the lens of criminalisation by association.

7. Typologies of Cases: The number of cases are numerous, and can be reviewed as needed. A short summary is provided of the types of cases that have arisen with CAGE since 8 October 2023:

1. University students prohibited from graduating, after re-posting a news article from a UK-based news outlet.

2. Schedule 7 (of the Terrorism Act 2000) stops leading to applications for and revocations of student and employment visas.

3. Lecturers being investigated for historical posts and being harassed by pro-Zionist lobby groups such as UK Lawyers For Israel (UKLFI) and Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA).

4. An academic and well established author who regularly writes on the subject of Palestinian self-determination and the right to resist, doxxed by the zionist group named “Gnasher Jew”. This led to his arrest under s12 and initiated a pattern of police harassment. He remains without charge almost a year after this arrest.

5. Cases of individuals advocating for Palestinian resistance -taken to mean support for a proscribed group - which has resulted in children being put in danger following doxxing and reckless reporting.

6. A police officer raided, arrested and indefinitely suspended from post due to his re-posting of a sketch of a prominent Palestinian leader. His family, including a young child, were present during the police raid on his home and were left traumatised by what they witnessed of police recklessness and force. He remains uncharged and in limbo almost 6 months on.

7. A Palestinian teacher doxxed for attending a pro-Palestine protest and sharing posts in Arabic in support of the Palestinian right to exist and resist. Public reporting of his activism led to his contract being terminated by his employer and to him being referred to both the Teacher Regulation Agency and the Disclosure and Barring Service. No police action was ever taken against him. He suffered immense anxiety and emotional distress as a result of the experience, which only exacerbated the personal loss he had suffered of family members in Gaza during the ongoing genocide.

8. A university student reported to the police for making a comment on the events of 7 October 2023. She was the target of a sustained campaign by UKFLI and CAA and had her student visa revoked as a result. She successfully appealed this revocation in court but the impact of distress and loss of time on her course were the inevitable result.

9. A well-known community activist and citizen-journalist arrested under s 12 TA 2000 for reposting information and updates about the ongoing genocide in Gaza. His posts, which were interpreted to be supportive of a proscribed organisation led to he and his family being subjected to multiple raids on their family home. He was also targeted with several additional arrests that were all later dropped, including attempts to bring charges for funding terrorism due to his charitable activities. He is presently awaiting his trial in September 2025.

10. A primary school student referred to Prevent for wearing a Palestinian badge to school - a symbol that was deemed to put him at risk of radicalisation under the UK government's counter extremism framework. He was questioned without parental knowledge or presence on his family's political and religious views and was ultimately suspended from school. He remains scarred by his experience within the education system and fearful of exhibiting any pro-palestine or anti-genocide sentiments or views.

11. A University medical student threatened with expulsion and subjected to multiple disciplinary processes at their university, as a result of being an active member of student societies dedicated to raising awareness aboutthe ongoing genocide in Gaza. They were reported by the pro-Zionist group UKLFI for misconduct and breach of GMC and University guidelines, and suspended pending investigation. Their suspension was ultimately dropped, and they were fully reinstated.

LEGAL IMPACT

8. The Terrorism Act impinges on Article 10 rights.

1. There have been a spate of arrests and charges under s12 TA 2000. The lack of existing case law on s12(1)(a) cases and the broad drafting of the offence means that there is very little by way of defence to anyone seen or interpreted to be referencing Hamas and very little protection to others online from falling foul of this law.

2. It has been found that the masking of genuine and allowable resistance under international law for those who find themselves occupied, as the Palestinians do, means that the charge of blanket reporting that anyone who supports Palestine or otherwise the right of resistance by Palestinians is a “Hamas” supporter. This is rife and is leading to a reckless disregard for Article 10 rights on the freedom of expression, and international law more generally that affords such rights to the Palestinians.

3. A key factor is how s.12 TA 2000 is being used in a university setting and other educational settings in a pervasive way. The policies of universities to carry internal disciplinary procedures are based on compliance with s.12. They have been used in the case studies to show bias, and when eventually challenged, have fallen away. There is no specialist used to determine if the matter is actually a breach of s.12 TA.

THE EFFECT OF PROSCRIPTION (2)

9. Case Example – The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. Facts: A solicitor was struck off the roll for what were judged by the regulator to be antisemitic posts. The solicitor was vulnerable, and CAGE assisted in finding him representation for an appeal. His matter was raised in the High Court, and it was reported that the regulator was receiving training from the CAA and using the CAA to provide expert evidence in the prosecution. The case is currently at the appeal stage awaiting a decision.

2. Impact: The regulator, it appears, seems to be compromised in its approach to impartially assessing cases. The individual solicitor is vulnerable and yet no thought was given to the impact this prosecution had on him. It was again born out of a complaint raised by the UKFLI and the CAGE client had been isolated and only discovered our client services after the removal decision.

3. Legal Impact: This links to the misuse of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition which was used by the regulator to seek a prosecution. In addition, this is prima facie an abuse of Article 14 ECHR, which ensures that Convention rights are applied without discrimination based on grounds such as religion, political opinion, race, or national origin.

10. Case Example – General Medical Council (GMC)

1. Facts: Dr B., an NHS consultant, was doxxed by the website “Gnasher Jew” for antisemitism, Holocaust denial, and expressing support for a proscribed organisation, namely Hamas. A complaint was initially submitted to the GMC by UKLFI and “Gnasher Jew” but was dismissed just two months later. A second complaint was submitted to the GMC in the months following. This was also dismissed and it was assessed that there was no cause for concern. A third complaint was later submitted alongside articles from the Jewish Chronicle, the Telegraph, and GB News. Following this third attempt, a GMC investigation was opened and Dr B. was handed an 18 month suspension pending the outcome.

The basis of the complaint against Dr B was only that she showed considerable support, through her tweets, for the right of the Palestinian people to resist. She publicly called for the de-proscription of Hamas, and openly criticises Israel in her work. Her investigation remains open and ongoing.

2. Impact: Dr B. has been suspended from her workplace since last year, pending the outcome of the GMC investigation. She has been repeatedly doxxed, with a recent article naming her among other doctors, and accusing them of antisemitism and the support of a proscribed organisation.

3. Legal impact: This is another example of how the regulators do not have any standard approach on how to balance free speech Article 10 rights, on the right to question political decisions to proscribe a group and the draconian way in which a suspension is ordered. S.12 is stopping highly qualified and well-meaning professionals from doing their job.

The higher threshold that doctors do have to adhere to when training is also a major obstacle when promoting free speech. Here they could simply not be allowed to continue if a patient expresses that they do not feel safe with the doctor. S.12 with its rigid framework, does not play well with opaque phrases such as “feel safe”. There has always been a flexibility to the professional standard and that was often determined with a straight forward set of rules, with some space for common sense. This case proves that this standard logic is no longer at play and the medical professionals that raise Gaza as an issue, are doing so on their own without any support.

GENERAL LEGAL IMPACT

11. What we find through these case studies are the fact that not any one of them have resulted in a conviction under the TA 2000. By way of a modus operandi established, there seems to be consistent reports by the websites Gnasher Jew and Harry’s Place. They will put out a social media post that then results in a complaint being raised by an organisation like the UKLFI or the CAA, with the charge more often than not, being one of accusing a person of being Anti-Semitic. This is supported by secondary guidance and adoption of highly controversial definitions of Anti-Semitism, such as those found in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). What has been clear is the psychological impact and collective trauma suffered by those reported. The aggressive nature of the complaints lends to impact on the family unit and on the individual personally.

12. In each case the vocal support of the Palestinian cause has attempted to be shut down by the complaints of a core group of organisations such as CAA and UKFLI. One must be able to logically conclude where it is the case that no prosecution has been successfully brought, it is possible to label organisations such as UKLFI and CAA as bad faith actors. If this was strategically taken to apply to other case studies, there is a high possibility in our examination of the papers, that the actions of the UKLFI and those of the CAA would constitute harassment. It is certainly what the feedback is from those that have been affected by the involvement of the CAA and UKLFI in their cases.

13. Of particular concern is the impact that the legislation of s.12 and the TA 2000 generally, is having on free speech. Article 10 of the ECHR has severely come under threat with the number of Palestinian voices on resistance including the accepted armed resistance allowed for those in [Israel and] the Occupied Territories. The case studies from CAGE involving university students exemplify a key propensity of internal policies and procedures marrying to accommodate the TA 2000 and leading to biassed prosecutions that in any normal court setting would be procedurally unable to continue. This involves the unfounded and discredited use of the IHRA definition. This has been used on numerous occasions to form the basis of an investigation or prosecution. There is no denying that antisemitism is a problem. But it cannot be resolved by stifling legitimate free speech and creating an environment of Islamophobia in its stead.

14. Article 14 ECHR ensures that Convention rights are applied without discrimination based on grounds such as religion, political opinion, race, or national origin¹¹. CAGE contends, supported by evidence from CAGE, that Section 12 and related counter-terrorism powers are being applied in a discriminatory fashion.

15. CAGE's "20 Years of TACT" report¹ provides statistical and case evidence demonstrating how counter-terror legislation has entrenched discrimination, particularly against Muslim communities. This includes the securitisation of Islamic beliefs and practices, where normative religious expression can be viewed through a lens of suspicion.

16. It is hoped this submission proves useful to the Secretary of State, if it is to be used as evidence for the case study examples of how the current legislation has affected British citizens and core fundamental beliefs such as the Freedom of Speech.

17. For the reasons outlined above, CAGE supports the deproscription of the applicant on the basis that this is an affront to Articles 10 and 14 of the ECHR.