Protesters Can Be Prosecuted for Chanting Jihad, Says Terror Law Watchdog

An independent review advised against amending terrorism laws owing to the risk of unintended consequences.

Protesters during a pro-Palestine march in central London on Oct. 28, 2023. Jordan Pettitt/PA Wire

Protesters chanting “jihad” may be prosecuted under current anti-terrorism law, said Jonathan Hall, KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

In his report on terrorism legislation and protests, published on Thursday, Mr. Hall said those who chant “jihad” may be prosecuted under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which criminalises statements that are likely to be understood as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation, or instigation of terrorist attacks.

The section “very much applies to protests and marches” and “might well apply to a person who led chants for ‘jihad’ in the context of a march, especially if terrorist attacks had already been carried out in support of the speaker’s cause, and members of the public might reasonably see a chant of jihad as encouragement to carry out their own act of terrorism in the UK or overseas. Jihad has benign meanings but, in this context, would likely refer to violence,” the report said.

Mr. Hall added that the offence is a “very serious terrorism offence” and “not a means of enforcing public order.”

The report, which examined four terrorism offences that are potentially relevant to protests, came after an argument between ministers and the police over whether certain chants and signs in recent pro-Palestinian rallies are illegal under current law, including chants of “jihad” in London.

During a “pro-Palestine” Islamist rally organised by the revolutionary Islamic party Hizb ut-Tahrir on Oct. 21, at least one demonstrator chanted “Jihad! Jihad!” after a speaker asked “What is the solution to liberate people in the concentration camp of Palestine?”

Following calls for action on social media, the Metropolitan Police said neither specialist officers nor specialist Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyers identified any offence in the clip showing the chant.

“The word has a number of meanings but we know the public will most commonly associate it with terrorism,” the Met said in a statement.

The Arab word for “struggle” is interpreted by extremists as a so-called holy war against enemies of Islam, while moderate Muslims argue the word is supposed to be interpreted as a spiritual internal struggle.

In livestreamed footage of the event, the speaker answered his rhetorical question moments later by saying the “only” solution to “rescue the people of Palestine” is “jihad by armies of the Muslim countries,” calling on “people with arms” in Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and “across the Muslim world” to “break the chain of command.”

Government ministers later called for “the full force of the law” to be brought against those who call for jihad, but the chiefs of the Met and the CPS defended their judgement that the chants are permitted under current law.

Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has been calling on the government to legislate against “hateful extremism,” which he said has fallen between the cracks of hate crime legislation and laws on terrorism.

But Mr. Hall has warned against creating a new body of law over hateful extremism, saying it’s too difficult to achieve without “going too far” in restricting free speech.

No Need to Change Terror Law

In his report on Thursday, he also advised against amending current anti-terrorism laws over recent protests.

“There is a general risk of legislating in response to one set of protests because of the risk of unintended consequences when new legislation comes to be applied to other protests,” he said.

He also said it would be “premature to conclude” that laws need to be changed when “real cases are currently before the courts” and “the edges of the current law are being tested out.”

Mr. Hall examined three offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and one offence under the Terrorism Act 2006, which can potentially be applied in protests, considered possible ways to amend them, but advised against the potential amendments as they carry various unintended consequences.

One of the four offences he examined is under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which makes it an offence to wear clothing or display an article in public if doing so in all the circumstances arouses reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. The offence carries up to six months in prison.

Mr. Hall said the offence shouldn’t be used against mere speech because that would risk “excessive damage to free expression.”

It could conceivably penalise those who support Hamas’s action of returning hostages, and those who don’t support Hamas’s violence but believe a reformed Hamas is the only tenable government for Gaza, he said.

He also said it’s “a recipe for disaster” to tighten the law around identified specific slogans or chants, citing the example of Pepe the Frog.

“Imagine a scenario in which Parliament legislated that a particular phrase was unsayable: within hours people would be gleefully conjuring up alternatives,” he wrote.

The Met declined to comment further on its assessment of the jihad chant heard last month.