Should Hizb ut-Tahrir be proscribed?

(c) conservativeparty

On Tuesday David Cameron apologised for factual errors he made last week when he accused the government of funding two schools with links to the controversial Islamist organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Conservative Leader had claimed that taxpayer money earmarked for a pathway designed to prevent terrorism had been given to schools in Slough and Haringey. His apology comes as it is revealed that the schools were in fact funded by a different pathway and each had tenuous links to Hizb ut-Tahrir.

The fallout from the revelation has, however, uncovered perhaps a far more interesting question around freedom of speech. In all the back and forth that followed David Cameron’s accusation (notably Shadow Communities Minister, Paul Goodman’s tirade against Ed Balls on the BBC’s Newsnight) there was a general consensus between the parties that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an “extremist” Islamist organisation that should be proscribed.

This consensus is a troubling one. I personally have no affinity with Hizb ut-Tahrir’s objective of creating an Islamic state under a reinstated Caliphate. Yet, the argument for its ban comes twinned with the possibility of creating a precedent that could see the likes of far-right and far-left political groups also being proscribed.

The allegations against Hizb ut-Tahrir suggest that they have been involved in anti-Jewish rhetoric, they have “glorified” terrorism and that they have; through youth groups, mosques and the internet, radicalised moderate Muslims through direct and indirect means. Critics also argue that Hizb ut-Tahrir have hidden their intolerance under a sophisticated PR machine. An interesting report by the Centre for Social Cohesion concludes that “HT [Hizb ut-Tahrir] provides ideological legitimacy for committing acts of terrorism in the absence of its Islamist state.“

Hizb ut-Tahrir deny the allegations against them and they, along with civil liberty campaigners argue that any prohibition would be denying a non-violent organisation from its right to engage in an equal exchange of ideas and it would ultimately be a blow for freedom of speech. Shami Chakrabarti spoke of the proposed ban in the Guardian on 8th August 2005: “…it is anathema to democracy to ban non-violent political organisations, however extreme.”

The debate is reminiscent of the one not long ago around the BNP’s appearance on BBC Question Time. As with then, I find the argument to exclude, prohibit and isolate these groups as one that totally undermines informed debate and objectivity.

There is a danger that the more the ideas of groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir are disregarded and the less they are debated the further the reasons for that disregard will slip out of the social conscience. The worst outcome would be for these values to represent a radical alternative; for such organisations to form a clique for the disenchanted and to ultimately be given a status not as abhorrent, not as extreme; but as martyrs for those raging against the body politic.

The key is showing that, aside from promoting freedom of speech, debating the achievements of Hizb ut-Tahrir best demonstrate its shortcomings. For fifty years it has failed in its ultimate goal to unite the Muslim people, having been banned from numerous Islamist states; it has no clear theories on the state model it would create and it has, wholly contrary to any revolutionary strategy, failed to generate mass support.

Be its influence in schools, mosques or through clandestine Internet chat-rooms; Hizb ut-Tahrir’s right to espouse its views should remain firmly established, as should the megaphone through which its ideological shortcomings can be argued.