How to legalise terrorism in 106 pages

A British law firm has now filed a legal application on behalf of Hamas, challenging the UK government’s designation of the group as a terrorist organisation. The 106-page appeal, submitted under the Terrorism Act 2000, argues that the 2021 proscription of Hamas violates the European Convention on Human Rights, citing concerns about freedom of expression, proportionality, and Britain’s alleged failure to prevent ‘genocide.’

At the heart of the complaint is the assertion that Hamas does not pose a threat to the United Kingdom or its citizens (fourteen British nationals were killed on 7 October, with more taken hostage on the day). The legal team, led by Fahad Ansari of Riverway Law and assisted by Daniel Grütters, a barrister at One Pump Court Chambers and Franck Magennis, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers, contends that to ban Hamas as a terrorist group is to unlawfully restrict public discourse, and to inhibit the British public’s ability to express solidarity with the ‘oppressed people of Palestine.’

The application was signed by senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook. He gave a witness statement and an account of the October 7 massacres in which he claimed that “allegations of beheading babies, systematic rape, and other unbelievably exaggerated crimes… hold no basis.” If baby-beheading, rape-excusing terrorists are on your side, you’re likely on the wrong side.

The language of the submission is ideological, rather than legalistic. It dismisses the October 7 massacre as a set of what it deems “unbelievably exaggerated crimes,” and it draws a straight line between British counterterror legislation and complicity in Israel’s military actions. The claim, therefore, is not only that Hamas should not be banned, but that its continued designation as a terrorist organisation violates Britain’s commitments to international justice.

There is no legal requirement that every argument made in court be morally coherent. But there is a growing tendency to stretch the language of human rights and what the phrase means to accommodate the most extreme of political causes such as this. If you appear in a British court to argue for a terrorist organisation armed with an application signed by the first chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, you are the terrorist. In this matter, the legal instrument developed to safeguard and protect civil liberties is, instead, being utilised to sanitise terrorism. Hamas launches rockets into civilian areas, openly advocates for the destruction of the sole democracy – however flawed it may be – in the Middle East, and enshrines antisemitism in its founding charter. To be committed to preserving the moral authority of international law is to do precisely the opposite of what Ansari, the lead of the case, argues to do: to legitimise, to legalise, terror.

This, though, is not the first time British institutions have been co-opted to challenge the moral legitimacy of Zionism, but it does mark an escalation. Proscription is not symbolic. It carries a legal weight; it prohibits support for, membership of, and fundraising for designated groups. Removing the designation does not simply open space for debate as Ansari claims; it opens the door to financial and political support for a group that murders civilians and uses its own people as human shields even further.

The architects of the challenge are not the ideal lawyers to be on a case as problematic as this. One of the barristers involved in the case tweeted ‘victory to the intifada’ on the very day of the October 7 massacre. Another has publicly characterised Zionism as a form of bigotry and praised Hamas leaders following their elimination by Israel. These are not simple, neutral observers applying constitutional principles to a difficult case. They are ideologues exploiting the British courtroom as a stage to amplify a cause they are invested in.

In 2021, then-Home Secretary Priti Patel – not without her faults, either – extended the UK’s designation of Hamas from its military wing to the entire organisation, having cited its clear and cooperative command structure. That distinction – between military and political wings – has always been a fiction, used in some European capitals as a way to maintain diplomatic flexibility. Hamas itself, though, makes no such distinction. Its political leadership has repeatedly defended – and even praised – terror attacks by its military wing, and its resources are pooled across the entire group to serve only a most alarming goal: to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamist state. They make no secret of this; it is in their ‘Covenant’ charter.

To reverse this proscription would not only ignore the group’s own declarations, but would further isolate Britain from its allies, including the US, EU, and Canada, all of whom recognise Hamas in its entirety, not solely its military wing, as a terrorist entity. It would, moreover, send a dangerous message to Jews already facing rising antisemitism: that their safety and legitimacy are both subject to legal reinterpretation.

Some will argue that even the worst ideologies deserve legal defence. That principle has merit, and there is no need to deny lawyers the right to represent controversial clients. There is, however, a difference between defending rights and promoting narratives. There is a difference between saying Hamas deserves procedural justice and suggesting that it is a legitimate ‘resistance’ movement wronged by the West.

The legal challenge, too, is unlikely to succeed. The government’s case for proscription is strong, supported by intelligence, international consensus, and the terrorist group’s own actions. But this initiative’s very existence is significant: it signals a growing willingness among segments of the legal and political class to put Zionism, not solely Israeli policy, on trial.

Democratic law should be a shield against tyranny, not a weapon for those who glorify it. In attempting to remove Hamas from the UK’s list of terrorist organisations, this legal challenge asks Britain to simply forget what it knows, to ignore what it sees, and to unlearn what it knows to be true. It asks to pretend that terrorism is simply a matter of perspective. But some truths are absolute, and no amount of legal activism by lawyers so clearly biased should be allowed to obscure that.