Hamas want to claim the same rights it seeks to destroy
10 April 2025, 12:08 | Updated: 10 April 2025, 12:18
Hamas's attempt to use human rights legislation to end their status as a proscribed terrorist organisation is an abuse of the courts and an insult to our Rule of Law.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
The notorious group was behind the 7 October attacks on Israel.
In 2001, the then Labour government proscribed the group as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. This made it a criminal offence to belong to or even invite support to the group.
Now, Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem – as the organisation is formally called – claims this is against Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. This is a bad joke with no basis in law. Let me calmly explain why.
It is complete absurdity that an organisation that endorses murder, rape, the use of civilians as human shields and systemically oppresses its own people can claim the very rights they seek to destroy.
But, in a democracy under the rule of law, even the ‘bad guys’ have rights. Equality before the law means that everyone is protected. That is how it should be. This is why we are different from the likes of Hamas.
But this does not mean there is an absolute right to advocate terrorism – let alone to be part of a prescribed organisation.
Article 10.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 indeed states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority”.
But this right is subject to what we lawyers call ‘derogations. In this case, the caveat stated in Article 10.2: These “freedoms…carries with it duties and responsibilities”. They may be “subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime”.
Hamas is proscribed because it is in the interest of ‘national security ‘and ‘the prevention of disorder and crime’.
The organisation might say that the proscription limits their freedom of assembly and association - Article 11 of the Human Rights Act. But that comes with the same derogations.
People may have reservations about the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. Still, these rules – written by British jurists (as it happens) protect our democracy against oppressive fundamentalists like Hamas.
It is a certainty that the judge in the case will say, case dismissed. And rightly so!
________________
Professor Matt Qvortrup is Director of Research at the Henry Jackson Society.
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk
