Creating New Laws to Tackle Extremism Is Unlikely to Work Says Terrorism Tsar

Jonathan Hall, KC, suggested offences could be created for some acts but argued legislation against hateful extremism will likely restrict free speech.

Undated image of the Shahada Flag. Wiki Creative Commons

Creating new laws to tackle hateful extremism is unlikely to work, says Jonathan Hall, KC, the government’s adviser on terrorism legislation.

The remarks came after the chief of Metropolitan Police said chants of “jihad” heard in London last week is permitted under current law and new legislation is needed to meet the public expectation to punish the behaviour.

Mr. Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, told The Telegraph he doesn’t believe new legislation will work because it’s too difficult to define hateful extremism without “going too far” in restricting free speech.

During a “pro-Palestine” Islamist rally on Saturday amid the Israel-Hamas war, at least one demonstrator chanted “Jihad! Jihad!” after a speaker asked “What is the solution to liberate people in the concentration camp of Palestine?”

The Met’s assessment that the chanting was lawful came under criticisms from social media users as government ministers said such behaviour should be met with “the full force of the law.”

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said police have power “to arrest those who are inciting violence or racial hatred,” but Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley insisted there are gaps in the law and it’s up to Parliament to plug them.

In 2021, Sir Mark co-authored a report saying there are gaps between hate crime legislation and laws on terrorism, calling for a separate set of hateful extremism laws to bridge them.

The so-called hate crimes are any crimes, including 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.

In his report, Sir Mark said “a great deal of hateful extremist activity” had fallen outside of the scopes of hate crime and counter-terrorism legislation and said the nature and scale of those lawful extremist activity was “shocking and dangerous.”

He said glorifying terrorism is legal “so long as one avoids encouraging the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism or related offences,” citing examples of “praising the actions and ideology of terrorists such as Anders Breivik, the 9/11 hijackers, Thomas Mair, or Brenton Tarrant to a wide audience, which may include children.”

He also said “intentionally stir up racial hatred,” for example, “forming a Neo-Nazi extremist group which persistently praises the actions of Adolf Hitler and encourages members to spread Holocaust denial material and antisemitic conspiracy theories,” is lawful “so long as one avoids being threatening, abusive or insulting and, in the case of religious hatred, avoids being threatening when doing so.”

Mr. Hall, who previously said some speeches at pro-Palestinian rallies in the past few weeks may have broken the law by glorifying terrorism, said people seen shouting “jihad” in the clip had been ““very careful” to call on the armies of Egypt, which is an official force, rather than any individuals to pursue jihad, The Telegraph reported.

He suggested offences could be created for some specific acts.

On Saturday, tens of thousands of demonstrators marched in a separate pro-Palestinian rally in London. Met Officers trawling the internet for images and footage said social media users mistakenly identified “shahada” flags carried by demonstrators as the flag of the ISIS terrorist group.

The flag carries a declaration of faith in Islam. However, a number of jihadist groups have adopted variations of it.

Mr. Hall said offences could be created for chanting “jihad” or “having a flag that is associated with terrorism generally.”

“You might say that flag—although it has legitimate religious uses, is, in the streets, really saying by implication: ‘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,” he said.

Mr. Hall also suggested the Met could use existing powers to impose restrictions on demonstrations, such as banning chants of “jihad” or flying Shahada flags on the basis they could harm and exclude people so they can arrest those to breach the conditions for public order offences, the report said.

However, the government adviser believes it’s too tricky to legislate against hateful extremism without infringing free speech, the report said.