‘Jihad’ chants can be prosecuted as encouraging terrorism

Chants of jihad at pro-Palestine marches can be prosecuted as encouraging terrorism, the Government’s adviser on counter terror legislation has said.

In a report published on Wednesday, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said he did not believe there was any need to toughen anti-terror laws in the wake of the national pro-Palestine protests.

He said current legislation gave police sufficient powers to take action against “encouraging terrorism” such as calls to jihad and any changes would have unintended consequences that could damage freedom of speech.

His report follows controversy over the Met Police’s decision not to take action after a man talked about Palestine at one of the rallies in London, and suggested the solution was “jihad”.

The Met said “jihad” had numerous meanings and it believed after consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service that no offence had been committed.

A matter of context

In his report, Mr Hall said Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 covering encouragement to terrorism applied to any statement made at a protest or march. “For example, it might well apply to a person who led chants for ‘jihad’ in the context of a march,” he said.

This was especially the case “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,” he added.

“Jihad has benign meanings but, in this context, would likely refer to violence.”

Mr Hall said the current legislation was adequate to deal with encouraging terrorism and did not need to be amended to cover “glorification” of acts of terrorism without any prospect that members of the public should seek to emulate it.

He warned that creating such an offence of glorification would apply to the thousands of people online whose “sick pleasure” was to “engage in competitive praise for violence including terrorism”. The result would be to overload police and intelligence services who would have to investigate multiple cases.

“My overall conclusion is that there is no need to legislate for any amendments to terrorism legislation now, and good reason for caution,” he said.

“It is difficult to identify any real situations where a gap in terrorism legislation means that terrorist mischief cannot currently be addressed by arrest and prosecution.

“Given the number of pro-Palestine marchers, there have been plenty of opportunities for gaps to become apparent. There may well be other mischiefs (such as anti-Semitism) but those are not a subject for terrorism legislation.

“It is possible to formulate hypothetical situations where certain words used might, arguably, fall outside terrorism legislation. However, to legislate for hypotheticals would be bad practice: the success of UK terrorism legislation is that it adapts in response to real terrorist harm.”

‘Unintended consequences’

He cited other aspects of terror legislation where extending it to deal with language without showing intent could have “unintended consequences”.

“The conduct of a ‘Walter Mitty’ character, or someone who says something stupid or in the heat of the moment, could not possibly justify a sentence of up to 14 years,” said Mr Hall.

Another example would be wearing or displaying an article linked to a proscribed organisation which, he said, could not be adapted to cover mere speech without the risk of undermining free speech.

“Unlike clothing or flags, speech is spontaneous and enables individuals to try out and debate ideas and propositions,” he said.

“It would appear to forbid any verbal expression in a public place (whether at a march or not) that called for deproscription or supported hostage-return by a proscribed organisation.

“It would penalise someone who said in a public place ‘I don’t support Hamas’ violence, and I hope they will change, but I think they are the only tenable government for Gaza’.”