‘Freedom of Speech’ Is a Trojan Horse for Supporting Hamas

What does Hamas have to do with freedom of speech?

Hamas is a proscribed organization under section 12 of the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000. It is an imprisonable offense to invite support for Hamas.

For some, this is unacceptable.

In May, the rap group Kneecap performed to tens of thousands at a music festival in London, leading the crowd in a chant of “Free Palestine.”

They were allowed to headline the festival despite one of the members, Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, being charged under the 2000 Act for inviting support for proscribed terrorist organisations. Video had emerged of him at another performance in London raising Hezbollah’s flag and leading the crowd in a chant of “up Hamas, up Hezbollah.”

Given their name, this may be unsurprising. “Kneecapping” was the practice of Northern Irish militants shooting captive dissidents in the kneecaps. Their name glorifies terrorism.

Now, Kneecap has claimed persecution, and harm to their freedom of speech, for supporting terrorist organizations that target Jews.

Yet their incitements have gone without consequence.

Kneecap alleged that the organizers of the festival “tried to stop this gig” because of their statements. This is false: the festival was initially cancelled, but only because the local council had failed to obtain permission for the festival.

If anything, Kneecap’s infamy has boosted their popularity. The group have sold out a performance in Glasgow in under 30 seconds, and announced their biggest ever performance in the UK.

They have weaponized a bad faith claim of freedom of speech for themselves and Hamas.

And they are not the only ones to do so.

Riverway Law, an English law firm, seeks to challenge the proscription of Hamas as unlawful. At first glance, Riverway Law’s engagement is an odd choice. They specialize in immigration, not public law. They have no experience with proscription.

The lawyers of the firm describe Hamas as “an organised resistance movement that exercises the right of the Palestinian people to resist Zionism and the colonisation, occupation, apartheid, and genocide carried out in its name.”

They say proscription of Hamas chills speech and makes successful negotiations for a just settlement impossible. They validate Hamas by analogizing it with the ANC in South Africa.

Riverway Law relies on expert witnesses to make bold arguments. One witness submits that proscription of Hamas makes it impossible to criticise Israel or its “genocide.” Another claims that the proscription caused the violence on October 7, 2023.

One lawyer claims that October 7 was merely a “military maneuver targeting the Gaza Division of Israel’s Southern Command”; that Hamas fighters were directed not to massacre innocent civilians, but instead only “to attack military targets [emphasis in the original].”

These claims are ghoulish and false. In the UK, it is legal to criticize Israel and its conduct of the war. When Israel is held to the same standard as other countries, criticism of it cannot even be regarded as antisemitic. And there is no indication that Hamas seeks a just settlement with Israel, unless that settlement means no Israel.

One might argue that, as lawyers, Riverway Law are only acting on their clients’ instructions. Some South African law firms insisted in an open letter that Riverway Law did not “share the political or ideological positions of those they represent.”

But Riverway Law was not required to accept Hamas’ case. Indeed, Riverway Law are acting pro bono, because it is unlawful to deal with the funds of proscribed organizations.

Of course, ideology is unlikely to be the sole motive. Pursuit of fame is also at play. This explains the cringeworthy video of Riverway Law hand-delivering their petition (the video was later taken down by Riverway Law, though the footage is available elsewhere), and their decision to host a website purely for this lawsuit (which, to avoid falling foul of the 2000 Act, requires users to submit a disclaimer accepting that the website “does not support Hamas”.)

But Fahad Ansari, Director and Principal Solicitor of Riverway Law, has called Hamas leaders “martyrs” according to press articles. In a press conference, intending to prove that he only acted as a lawyer, Ansari referred to Hamas as an “Islamic resistance movement.” And the barrister instructed by Riverway Law, Franck Magennis, posted on his X account to proclaim “Victory to the intifada” on October 7, and to call for Israel to be “dismantled.”

Riverway Law and Kneecap have this in common: they both seem to support Hamas. Freedom of speech is, at best, incidental.

Asher Abramson is a lawyer in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The post ‘Freedom of Speech’ Is a Trojan Horse for Supporting Hamas first appeared on Algemeiner.com.