Yvette Cooper is facing a vital new campaign from an advocacy organisation to de-proscribe Palestinian resistance. CAGE have made a formal application to the home secretary for the de-proscription of Hamas.
A proscribed organisation is one which the government believes:
- commits or participates in acts of terrorism
- prepares for terrorism
- promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism)
- is otherwise concerned in terrorism
In an application seen by the Canary, CAGE set out an argument to de-proscribe Hamas based on:
the systemic suppression of political speech, particularly within Britain’s Muslim communities.
Proscription means that it is a criminal offence to belong to, invite support for, or wear clothing depicting a proscribed organisation. Hamas’ military wing were proscribed in the UK in 2001, and the organisation as a whole was proscribed in 2021.
Awaiting review from Yvette Cooper
Yvette Cooper now has 90 days to respond to the application. CAGE have made it clear that their application is rooted in principles of freedom of speech, rather than any particular politics.
Palestine Action co-founder, Richard Barnard, said:
Many may be under the illusion that free speech is protected in Britain, but unfortunately they are wrong. I was targeted and silenced by the state for giving a speech in support of the Palestinian people.There’s no doubt that the prosecution against myself, and many others, is entirely political. Evidence suggests that foreign interference has led to many of us being targeted to protect the Zionist regime by silencing critics of genocide.
In their application, CAGE demonstrate the impact of Hamas being proscribed:
The human cost is clear. The proscription is enabling unjust consequences: teachers suspended, doctors struck off, students expelled, and charities paralysed, all without due process, and often without any formal conviction.
For CAGE, their application is about protecting freedom of speech:
The systematic suppression of pro-Palestinian speech does not merely harm the individuals and communities targeted; it threatens the broader principles of open debate and political freedom upon which a free society must be based.
CAGE cite Dr. Sophie Haspeslagh’s book, Proscribing Peace: How listing armed groups as terrorists hurts negotiation. Haspeslagh explains that systems of proscription often hurt the path to peace. CAGE write that:
Ultimately, her work shows that like with Sinn Fein and the African National Congress, ultimately governments must negotiate those they once considered ‘terrorist’.
Organisation after organisation, from the United Nations to Human Rights Watch to Amnesty International have released reports evidencing Israel’s genocide against Palestine. These findings have painted a picture of Israel’s war crimes against civilians in its pursuit of Hamas. And, importantly, Hamas’ very existence cannot be understood without reckoning with the siege and occupation that settler colonial Israel have imposed on Palestine for decades now. That, surely, cannot be ignored by Yvette Cooper when considering the context of the application.
As CAGE argue above, designations of terrorism obstruct the peace process. In addition to this, such labels are often motivated by political choice rather than absolute fact. As administrators of parts of Palestine, Hamas must be part of any movements towards peace, as CAGE argue:
While the organisation Hamas remains a proscribed organisation, there can be no effective debate or discussion about the long-term future of Palestine, as one of the main political parties in the region is vilified by the legal structures of the British state.
Testimony for Yvette Cooper
In their application, CAGE also collect the testimony of those whose expressions of political opinion have been curtailed by the proscription of Hamas. In one such case:
Six students from a University reposted a Middle East Eye article on the University’s Palestinian Society Instagram story, that discussed the death of Ismail Haniyeh and referred to him as a martyr. The students simply reposted the articles without any additional commentary. The University reported them to the police for support of a terrorist organisation, namely Hamas.
The Police, after two weeks, informed the university that no further action would be taken.
The government should have no right to uphold such restrictions on speech and opinion. Sharing articles that discuss the death of someone in Palestine is not an example of proportionate restrictions under proscription laws.
In another case:
K, the President of a Palestine Society at a prominent University, circulated the headline “resistance fighters launch surprise attack against Israel” as a part of a weekly digest to update their audience of Palestine related news. Another student, on seeing this, made a complaint to the University, citing his fear and distress, while simultaneously threatening K on social media with prosecution.
Again, there is an apparent danger that any characterisations of Palestinian resistance are deemed to fall under a flawed definition of terrorism. By November 2024, Israel had dropped 85,000 tonnes of bombs on Gaza – far outstripping World War II munitions. Opposition to such destruction, of one’s home, one’s people, one’s loved ones is not innately terrorism.
Ms L, saw her husband arrested for posting social media commentary on Palestine. Ms L herself was then sanctioned by the secondary school who employ her. As CAGE write:
The criminalisation of Mrs L by the school and maligning of her character impacted Ms L’s mental health and family life. She felt targeted and unduly criminalised by her employer and was reluctant and fearful about returning to work as a result.
A healthcare professional for the NHS, M2, was reported to her Trust by co-workers after posting content about Palestine on her personal Instagram story. CAGE reported that:
Following a decision being made on her case, and continuing after her appeal was successful, M2 was subject to intense scrutiny and micromanagement on her managed return. The impact on her personal and professional life has been immense.
CAGE includes many more examples, from teachers, doctors, students, academics, and many others facing formal disciplinary action and sometimes even involvement from the police for how they discussed Palestine privately. The question, then, facing Yvette Cooper in this application is one not of political allegiance, but of freedom of speech. Is this really the environment the government should be cultivating?
Erosion of rights
The weight of these testimonies cannot be understated. They paint a damning picture of an erosion of rights, particularly for British Muslims.
Yvette Cooper’s decision will be eagerly awaited, but in the meantime we cannot lose sight of the fact that Israel have committed war crime after war crime in their relentless pursuit to obliterate all Palestinian life and culture. Hamas’ existence, and Palestinian resistance more broadly, should not be proscribed by the UK as terrorism.
Just as history has proven the likes of the African National Congress to have been combating apartheid, so too must our government recognise that proscription is a restriction of freedom of speech.
Featured image via the Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.