Terrorism Tsar Expresses Doubts on the Efficacy of Creating New Laws to Combat Extremism
Jonathan Hall, KC, suggested that while offences could be created for some acts, legislation against hateful extremism is likely to restrict free speech.
Jonathan Hall, KC, the government’s adviser on terrorism legislation, argues that creating new laws to tackle hateful extremism is unlikely to work.
This statement follows the remarks made by the chief of Metropolitan Police, who stated that chants of “jihad” heard in London last week are permitted under current law and called for new legislation to meet public expectations to punish such behavior.
Related Stories
During a “pro-Palestine” Islamist rally on Saturday, at least one demonstrator chanted “Jihad! Jihad!” following a question about liberating people in the concentration camp of Palestine.
The Metropolitan Police’s assessment that this chanting was lawful received criticism from social media users, while government ministers argued that such behavior should be punished with the full force of the law.
In 2021, Sir Mark co-authored a report highlighting gaps between hate crime legislation and laws on terrorism. The report called for separate legislation on hateful extremism to bridge these gaps.
Hate crimes encompass physical assaults, verbal abuses, or incitement to hatred that demonstrate or are motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or transgender identity.
While glorifying terrorism is legal as long as it does not encourage the commission or preparation of terrorist acts, Sir Mark provided examples of actions that fall within the bounds of the law. These include praising the actions and ideologies of terrorists such as Anders Breivik, the 9/11 hijackers, Thomas Mair, or Brenton Tarrant to a wide audience, possibly including children.
Additionally, intentionally stirring up racial hatred, such as forming a Neo-Nazi extremist group that perpetually praises Adolf Hitler’s actions and encourages the spread of Holocaust denial material and antisemitic conspiracy theories, is lawful as long as it avoids being threatening, abusive, or insulting.
Mr. Hall, who previously suggested that some speeches at pro-Palestinian rallies may have broken the law by glorifying terrorism, stated that the individuals seen shouting “jihad” in the clip were careful in their wording, specifically calling on the armies of Egypt rather than any individuals to pursue jihad.
He proposed the creation of offences for specific acts.
The shahada flag represents a declaration of faith in Islam, although various jihadist groups have adopted variations of it.
Mr. Hall suggested that offences could be created for chanting “jihad” or for displaying a flag associated with terrorism in general.
He stated, “You might say that flag—although it has legitimate religious uses—is, in the streets, implying ‘Let’s have terrorism’; or using the word jihad, you could create an offence under terrorism law that says it is an offence to do it, whether you intended to or not, because it has that sort of terrifying effect.”
Mr. Hall also proposed that the Metropolitan Police could use existing powers to impose restrictions on demonstrations, such as banning chants of “jihad” or the display of Shahada flags, as they could harm and exclude people. This would allow them to arrest those who breach the conditions for public order offences.
However, the government adviser believes that legislating against hateful extremism without infringing on free speech poses significant challenges.
