HAMAS Takes Legal Action Against UK for Genocide Complicity!

Right, so Hamas are taking the UK government to court over the terror designation they’ve got, having engaged legal representation and submitted a 106 page dossier by way of evidence, as well as exercising their rights under section 4 of the Terrorism Act, not to mention the European Convention on Human Rights, to set out their stall as to why they should no longer be a proscribed group in the UK.
Since they currently are completely proscribed however, it would behove me to state at this point that no part of this video is in any way, shape or form, expressing support for Hamas, because that would be illegal right now, but will that remain the case going forwards?
Hamas’ military wing was proscribed all the way back in 2001, it was a somewhat out of the blue move in 2021 by then Home Secretary Priti Patel, to include the political side of Hamas in that designation, the official government of Gaza as they were at that time and remain so to this day, such as Gaza is right now after 18 months of Israel’s genocide, they of course not proscribed at all.
So do Hamas have a case here? Is the UK’s one sided positioning here making them complicit in genocide, as Hamas argue, when Hamas are all that functionally stands between Israel and their total seizure of Gaza and how damaging will it be for the UK if they end up being forced to lift, even in part, the terror designation on Hamas?
Right, so it was all the way back in November 2021, that the UK government, under then-Home Secretary Priti Patel, expanded its proscription of Hamas to include not only its military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, but also its political wing. This decision, framed as a moral stand against terrorism, has since faced scrutiny—not least because of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, where Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians with full Western backing. Now, Hamas has launched a legal challenge against the UK government, seeking to overturn its designation as a terrorist organisation in its entirety.
The case, is being brought forward by lawyers Fahad Ansari of Riverway law, Daniel Grutters of One Pump Court Chambers, and Frank Magennis of garden Court Chambers, argue that the UK’s blanket ban stifles diplomatic avenues, contradicts historical precedents, such as for example negotiations with Sinn Féin during the Northern Ireland peace process, and may even constitute complicity in Israel’s genocide by denying Hamas, who are the governing authority in Gaza, any legitimacy and locking the UK government out of entering negotiations with them.
So the UK first proscribed Hamas’ military wing in 2001 but they maintained a distinction between its armed faction and its political leadership. This changed in 2021 when Patel, who was then and is now a staunch supporter of Israel, who can forget her trying to use International Aid to fund Israeli activity in the Golan heights for example? Forced to resign over that little stunt as she was, extended the ban to the entire organisation, both military and political. Her justification? That there was no distinction and that Hamas’ attacks on Israel were because the group was rabidly antisemitic. Well that doesn’t make them a terror threat, that would, even if it were even true, make them racist, but of coruse the real racism is claiming attacks on Israel are ever antisemitic. It is a self proclaimed Jewish state, but its actions endanger more Jewish people around the world than they claim to stand up for, and certainly a great many Jewish people decry and denounce Israel’s actions and even its very existence, a Western colonial project as it inherently is. Patel’s move to proscribe Hamas’ political wing therefore, the militant side have certainly carried out acts of terror, is based on bias, was arguably an ideological move rather than anything based on UK national security.
This move was controversial because it was downright hypocritical and exposes real problems with UK proscription. Unlike the case of the IRA and Sinn Féin—where the UK negotiated with the political wing despite the IRA’s armed campaign—Hamas has been entirely blacklisted and this undermines UK claims to be an impartial entity in conflict resolution, when they are only when it suits them it seems. If dialogue with Sinn Féin was essential for peace in Northern Ireland, why is it unacceptable with the political wing of Hamas, particularly when Gaza faces annihilation and they are the Gazan government?
By fully proscribing Hamas, the UK effectively endorsed Israel’s narrative that no Palestinian resistance—armed or political—could therefore be legitimate. Is that a fair assessment or no?
So the legal challenge itself by Hamas’ legal team, who have not been paid anything for their services, entirely pro bono, because it would be illegal to accept funds from a designated terror group, are challenging the proscription on several grounds, utilising both the Terrorism Act of 2000 and the European Convention on Human Rights, the ECHR.
Now the Terrorism Act 2000 has come in for a lot of scrutiny and a lot of condemnation of late, being vague in its terminology and being used as a blunt tool to stifle protest, a single complaint against an individual is enough to elicit a visit from the fuzz, so there is ample room for credible lawyers to use the Act’s shortcomings to expose heavy-handedness and this forms part of the case.
Section 4 of the Terrorism Act gives a proscribed body the right to appeal that proscription, an application of deproscription if you will, but also included in the 106 page appeal are arguments concerning a whole host of issues which seem ridiculous that they exist and all the more so when you consider the Terrorist Act has remained unamended since 2006.
For example, the fact that the Home Secretary has unilateral power to proscribe groups without judicial oversight is, as appears to be the case with Patel, being so avowedly pro Israel, a serious shortcoming. Hamas’ lawyers argue that this process lacks transparency and due process.
The failure to distinguish between political and military wings is a farce considering the UK’s own track record, its own history with the IRA which showed that engaging with political factions can and do lead to peace. By refusing to recognise any part of Hamas, the UK shuts down potential negotiations it could be part of if it chose to be.
One of the most serious allegations which face the UK government is of complicity in genocide, because with Israel’s destruction of Gaza ongoing, aided and abetted by UK surveillance flights as are now known about, the UK’s refusal to engage with Hamas as well, who are the elected governing authority effectively sidelines Palestinian voices while Israel continues its ethnic cleansing.
And then on top of that you have ECHR Violations. The legal team argues that the ban infringes on rights to freedom of association contained in Article 11 of the ECHR and political expression, Article 10 of the ECHR. If Hamas is entirely barred from political recognition, Palestinians in the UK who engage with them, even for humanitarian reasons, even just to oppose the genocide in Gaza, risk prosecution.
And then of course there is the double standards and hypocrisy here.
Despite overwhelming evidence of war crimes, apartheid, illegal occupation and now genocide, Israel has never been designated a terrorist state by the UK. Its military actions in Gaza—targeting hospitals, schools, and refugee camps—far exceed Hamas’ capabilities, yet only one side faces sanctions and of course we’ve witnessed 18 months of this, yet the excuses the UK government give for turning a blind eye to it, all come back to that one night of October 7th, which yes, was an act of terror, but what about everything since? It cannot be justified as a legitimate response surely?
Then of course I could point to the example of Syria and the deproscription of Hayat tahrir Al-Sham, the now de facto unelected government of Syria, who’s leader and now unelected president, Ahmed Al Sharaa, once had a $10m bounty on his head for acts of terror, Al Qaeda castoffs as that lot are. Well the UKs decision came just as arbitrarily as proscription does. Despite Al Qaeda having legitimately committed acts of terror on our soil. This lot get forgiven, name change and conquering a country and deposing a regime the UK didn’t like, all that was required. This decision was made without any clear justification, and undermined the credibility of UK proscriptions. If HTS—a group with well-documented atrocities, not least in connection with the terror group they were borne out of—can be delisted, then the whole system is a farce.
And what are the consequences? Solidarity with the Gazan people can be undermined if UK citizens can be seen to be expressing support for Hamas, face prosecution and that’s why I take great care to always make clear I am not doing that, I am not offering Hamas support, because it is illegal to do for one.
From a diplomatic perspective it blocks peace efforts. By refusing to engage with Hamas, the UK ensures that no viable Gazan leadership can negotiate, leaving Gaza’s fate entirely in Israel’s hands and we’re party to that in more ways than just this of course.
Functionally it sends a message out, that legitimises Israeli violence, that The reinforces the narrative that Palestinians have no right to resist occupation, no matter how brutal that occupation has been and continues to become.
So ultimately is Hamas’ legal challenge just about a terror listing? This is bigger than that. It’s about whether the UK will adhere to its own principles or continue enabling genocide on one hand. On another it is asking if the UK truly believes in conflict resolution, it must reconsider its blanket ban on Hamas, just as it once engaged with Sinn Féin, because that case and others just expose the double standards and hypocrisy of this situation.
The case also exposes the arbitrary nature of terror designations in the UK, that they come and go seemingly on a whim, revealing them as tools of political convenience rather than justice and arguably are decisions that should be taken out of the hands of politicians and put in the hands of the judiciary. If Israel can bomb children with impunity while Hamas is barred from politics, then the UK’s counterterrorism policy is not about safety—it’s about picking sides, apparently no matter how awful the atrocity.
So this case will make for interesting observation, because we’ll all soon see whether Britain’s courts address some serious shortcomings in terror legislation, which desperately needs addressing given the arbitrary and heavy handed usage of it under the Starmer regime and uphold the law or submit to political pressure. Either way, the outcome will shape not just Hamas’ standing, but the UK’s moral credibility in an era of unprecedented violence against Palestinians, when the UK governments support for those committing terror against Palestinians seems unshakable no matter what.
It especially doesn’t help that a body within the Labour Party like Labour Friends of Israel has such a pervasive grip on so many Labour MPs and not least Keir Starmer himself, but they dared to criticise Israel just, very slightly the other day, for deporting two Labour MPs they refused to let into the country, who were considered too critical of Israel, because there are even more rabidly pro Zionist groups than even them and one of them has now deigned apparently to report LFI to the Israeli authorities seeking to get them all banned from going to Israel! Oh what a lovely dose of karma! Get all the details of that story in this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch, please do also hit like, share and subscribe before you do so though if you haven’t already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new content published daily, as well as supporting the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.