Aletho News

Remove Hamas and the other Resistance groups from the Home Office list of proscribed organisations

By David Miller | Al Mayadeen | March 14, 2025

The British government should de-proscribe all of the Palestinian and Lebanese Resistance groups currently listed on the anachronistic list maintained by the Home Office. The first and most obvious reason for this is that banning these groups does not in any way prevent or disrupt political violence in the UK. This sounds like a dramatic claim. So, let’s take a close look.

After a year and a half of genocide by the illegitimate Zionist entity, voices are beginning to be raised calling for the removal of Palestinian resistance groups from the government list of proscribed organisations. But what is the list and what offences are attached to it?

When I was detained by officers of SO15 or the Counter Terrorism Command (formerly the Special Branch) under Schedule 7 the other day, I was given a piece of paper with the legal basis of the detention which I was required to sign and was given a copy to keep. It states that the detention is to enable whether I appeared ‘to be a person who is or has been concerned in the commission of instigation of acts of terrorism.’

And yet, they asked me no questions about commissioning or instigating acts of “terrorism”. Not a single one.

Instead, they asked about extremism, the Western way of life, and asked me to characterise specific views on political violence. If the Trades Description Act applied to the Terrorism Act 2000 and to the activities of SO15, I would be making a complaint to the Heathrow Trading Standards Officer.

But the reason for this is that Schedule 7 is not really intended to disrupt actual terrorism, but to surveill and repress political views and political speech which is critical of UK foreign policy, including of course support for the Palestinians’ legitimate right to resist the Zionist occupation. Don’t believe me? Let’s look closely at the Home Office list of offences related to proscribed organisations.

As one can see from the offences below, none of them have anything to do with actual acts of violence. Let’s take each in turn.

1. Obviously being a member of a proscribed group might have some relevance, but membership is not itself an act of terror. And certainly, professing to be a member of Hezbollah is not, in itself, an act of terror.
2. Inviting support for a proscribed group is an offence. How does one ‘invite’ support for a ‘terrorist’ organisation? The language is of course similar to the ‘notice’ issued to UK broadcasters on 19 October 1988. Otherwise known as the Broadcasting Ban, this was an attempt to suppress support for the Irish Republican movement and in particular its political wing Sinn Fein, which throughout the period remained a legal political party with many elected councillors in the north of Ireland. It made, as I argued at the time, no appreciable difference to the Irish Republican Army, the wing of the movement engaged in armed struggle. But what does it mean to ‘invite’ support? It’s not altogether clear and it is pretty plain that this particular provision has been of little use to the British state, resulting, as it has, in precious few convictions. As a result, the government added a wider and more vague clause to the act via the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, to which we turn next.
3. Express an ‘opinion’ or ‘belief’ that is supportive of a proscribed organisation. What does that mean? It obviously has the potential to be stretched quite far into opinions and beliefs that are shared by most people, even in the UK. Is saying that Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, the assassinated leader of Hezbollah, was widely respected and admired an opinion which is ‘supportive’ of a banned group?  Notice the language is ‘will be’ encouraged not ‘is’ encouraged. So, at best this is a conjectural crime which does not require that anyone is actually encouraged, only that the hypothetical ‘reasonable person’ might think that. Again, nothing here that relates to involvement in planning any ‘act’ of violence.
4. Arranging or managing a meeting is, manifestly, not an act of violence, whether or not it involves giving ‘support’ for a proscribed organisation and whether or not a representative of the organisation speaks, or whether the purpose of the address is to encourage support. In fact, the more we hear the voices of those (in proscribed organisations and legal ones alike) who are involved in resisting the menace of Zionism and genocide, the better it will be for the possibility of ending the genocide.
5. Next is Clothing: It is an offence to ‘wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation’. Articles of clothing are also not in themselves acts of terror, no matter how they are displayed. Obviously, what they have in mind here is branding relating to specific organisations, such as a Hezbollah flag, a Qassam Brigades head band, or other perhaps less directly connected imagery or items.  Obviously, given the attemtps of the Zionists and their craven allies in the British security state, there is a push to widen the parameters so they can scoop up more and more supporters of the Palestinians. Thus the case of the young women found guilty under these powers of sporting parachute patches (below).

Or, the case of the young man found guilty of supporting Hamas for wearing a green headband with the Shahada (the Muslim profession of faith) on it (first below). This is of course not a ‘Hamas headband’. Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, do have a specific headband with a gun on it! As can be seen, it is not at all similar (right below).

6.        It is an offence to “publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the                          same circumstances.” This is obviously intended to cover social media posts, which are manifestly not                           ‘acts’  or terrorism. This provision was inserted (12.4.2019) by Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act                        2019.

Overall, then, as we see these ‘proscription’ powers have nothing at all to do with interfering with material acts of political violence or armed struggle.

The proscription offences are not terrorism offences. It is an absurd nonsense, not to mention a colossal waste of resources, that SO15 are required to attempt to police thoughts, beliefs and speech as the vast majority of their activities at ports.

When the leading journalist Asa Winstanley was recently raided (but not arrested), he was told that it related to his alleged support for proscribed groups. A letter addressed to him ‘from the “Counter Terrorism Command” … indicates that the authorities are “aware of your profession” as a journalist but that “notwithstanding, police are investigating possible offenses” under sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act (2006). These provisions set out the purported offense of “encouragement of terrorism.”’

And yet, if you look at the passage at the beginning of this article about commission or instigation of acts of terror, the implication is that to be of interest one would have to be involved in setting up a branch of Qassam Brigades in North London, or a version of Hezbllah’s Radwan Force in Reading.  There is nobody in the entire counter-terrorism apparatus who believes that that is what Asa, me, or anybody else, is doing.

And when you put it like that, it’s also manifestly the case that neither Hamas, Hezbollah, the PFLP-GC or Palestinian Islamic Jihad are planning to set up branches in the UK, or – indeed – to carry out attacks here. Given the UK’s role in directly participating in the genocide, that is generous of them, but it appears to be a fact.

But more than that, free speech about armed groups fighting an almost universally acknowledged genocide should not be criminalised and proscribed.

And the case for proscribing their welfare, health, education and other manifest functions of Hezbollah and Hamas is even weaker.

They should be de-proscribed now.

March 14, 2025 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Hamas, Hezbollah, Human rights, UK, Zionism | Leave a comment

How UK counter-terror police colluded with Zionists to detain me after Beirut trip

By David Miller – Press TV – February 27, 2025

At 21.32 local time on the evening of Monday, 24 February, I stepped off a plane from Istanbul to Heathrow and into the terminal building.

In front of me were a wide circle of people evidently waiting for someone, perhaps for a number of passengers. I knew right away one of them was me.

One of the SO15 (formerly special Branch) plain clothes officers of the Counter Terrorism Command, for it was them, asked for my passport and whether I had started my journey in Istanbul.

Of course I knew that they knew this was not the case. In any case, I had done nothing wrong in – as I said to them – visiting Beirut to cover the funeral of Hezbollah leaders Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Sayyed Hashem Safieddine.

This was my first taste of Schedule 7. They started to explain what Schedule 7 was and I said yes, I know about it. From being stopped before? No, because I am a researcher who studies terrorism legislation.

About then, on the moving walkway, I realised that the circle of people had only been waiting for me. I looked round and counted them out loud. I know I’m a big lad, I said, (I am over 6 foot) but did you really need eight officers to detain me?

So, we got to the interrogation room, which is, as past detainees will know, immediately behind passport control. Anyone coming out of that door is SO15 or a detainee.

For those who may face this experience in the future, it is worth explaining how the process goes.  It’s a bureaucratic procedure.

There is a guidance hand book dictating how the process should be handled. First they have to read out the relevant extract from the Terrorism Act. It’s a whole page (see below) and they give you a copy, which they ask you to sign.

The essential bit is that you are being ‘detained’ as opposed to arrested in order that the ’Examining Officer’ can determine if you ‘appear’ to be a person ‘concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism’.

A couple of other details are of relevance. They can’t hold you for more than 6 hours after the time they first apprehend you. You are not under criminal investigation or under arrest and as a result ‘you do not have the right to remain silent’. If they do change their minds and arrest you, you do at that point have the right to remain silent and you should do so.

You have to participate in the process, answer questions and to accept being searched. You don’t have to answer questions that you think they are asking and only need to answer what they actually ask.  There is no need to be unduly long winded!

The other point to note is that nothing you say can be used ‘in evidence in criminal proceedings’. (The only exceptions are that if you do not comply, that can be used in evidence and if you later rely on something in court which is ‘inconsistent’ with what you say, then the contents of your interview can be used).

You have the right to contact a next of kin/friend and a lawyer and you should exercise that right. The rules state that if you ask for a solicitor you cannot be questioned until your solicitor has consulted you.

And your solicitor can participate in the questioning either on the phone or in person, if you can get them out of bed to come to wherever you are detained!

Once in the room both I and my luggage were searched. They found little of interest. No devices. The only thing that they brightened at was a very small USB drive, which I had forgotten was in there.

I confirmed that I thought it had no security protection and they took it away. Later it was returned, much to my surprise.  What was on it I asked?  Only some teaching notes they said in disappointment.

Later, at home I checked. Hilariously there was only one file on the drive: a Powerpoint presentation on the ‘Zionist movement’.

And so we got to the actual interrogation. I estimate that mine started about 23.00, so there was a long period of silence while we waited for the solicitor to call back.

This was partly due to the police deciding that they could not call my first nominated solicitor because he wasn’t on their list, though he should not have needed to be.

Anyway, after I talked to my solicitor, we were off.

What followed was around two hours of questioning about my trip to Beirut. Why did I go, what did I do when I was there, did I support Hezbollah, and many other similar questions.

There is not space to tell it all blow by blow but here are some highlights which might be of use to others who like me are manifestly not involved in the commission of acts of terrorism, as everybody knows.

First, they wanted to know why I went. As I had already intimated when they first stopped me, I was there to cover the funeral as a journalist. As is public knowledge, I work as a journalist on a freelance basis.

I produce a TV show called Palestine Declassified for Press TV, and write for a variety of other publications such as Electronic Intifada, Mintpress, TRT World and Mayadeen English. I mentioned this as well as mentioning that I used to work at the university of Bristol until I was sacked.

They asked about that. I summarised the story including the four occasions on which I was exonerated of ‘antisemitism’ at Bristol (internal enquiry, two external QC reports and the internal appeal), followed by the ‘landmark’ victory at the Employment Tribunal in February 2024.

We went on to discuss my trip to Lebanon. What did I do there? I recounted that I had visited the southern village of Maroun El Ras which is within a mile of the border of occupied Palestine, high on a hill overlooking the colonial settlements of Avivim and Yir’on.

I went with a number of other foreign guests including from Ireland, Yemen, Brazil and various other countries. What was there I was asked? I replied (truthfully) that there was nothing in the village since almost all 600 houses had been destroyed.

The officer seemed confused: why would I want to visit then? Precisely because it had been destroyed by the Zionists, obviously.

We got fairly quickly to the question of whether I supported Hezollah as a proscribed organisation. I referred back to my Employment Tribunal at which similar questions had been asked somewhat ineffectually by the University of Bristol’s counsel Chris Milsom.

There I had said the same thing as I now stated: I ‘support’ the right as given in international law for the Palestinians (and indeed others under occupation) to resist including by armed force.

In case officers in SO15 or other actors need reminding of this, the relevant text is from the UN General Assembly resolution 38/17 of 1983, which states that it

“Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for their independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle”.

They went on to see if they could entice me into saying I specifically supported proscribed organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah. So, I obviously went on to say that it was not only a question of Hezbollah and Hamas, but also Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the PFLP-GC, which is of course not the same as the PFLP itself, which is not proscribed. It was instructive that my interrogator appeared not to know about PIJ and the PFLP-GC, asking me to repeat each name.

We also visited the topic of deproscription. The officer wanted to know why I thought that all of the four, groups should be de-proscribed.

It seemed like he thought this was a valuable concession from me. But, as he is, presumably, aware, the Terrorism Act (year) specifically notes that it is not illegal to call for de-proscription.

I include a table from the Home Office website which gives a list of the charges that can relate to proscribed organisations.

And then we were on to the question of terrorism. Did that mean that I thought they were not terrorist. At which point I am afraid I referred back to my decades long record of research on the question of terrorism and its role in propaganda including my early work on the struggle to decolonise the north of Ireland.

As if the sentiments encoded in the proscribed list or the Western use of the term ‘terrorism’ itself are necessarily subscribed to even by most British citizens, never mind the rest of the world. Let’s not forget that the way in which we use the term ‘terrorism’ in the west – in particular ‘Islamic terrorism’, has it origin in Zionist propaganda operations as has been shown by, for example, Remi Brulin.

At one point, apparently out of the blue I was asked: Are you a practising Muslim? I expressed some surprise at this question. In his defence my interrogator said that I had earlier noticed and asked about whether the small pile of folded prayer mats in the cupboard was in fact a small pile of folded prayer mats.

I had noted them earlier and wanted to check that’s what they were. Only the best for the predominantly Muslim ‘guests’ of the room! As the Guardian reports only 20% of Schedule 7 detentions are of white people (that’s including ‘white Irish’, and others stopped, like me for their solidarity activities, so it’s likely that the proportion of white ‘far right’ suspects stopped is lower than 20%)

The officer seemed mystified about my attendance at an event in which everyone must have been a supporter of Hezbollah. As if reporting on events and supporting those events is the same thing. He asked if everyone there supported Hezbollah.

I replied that I didn’t feel able to report any great knowledge on the consciousness of perhaps the million people there. But it is certainly the case that there were very many Hezbollah flags.

I did also note that there was a largish contingent from the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and made the point that the sheer numbers present suggested that Nasrallah has something of a larger reputation than just among party members and core supporters.

As we talked the officer started asking about Press TV, for which I work on a freelance basis. He evidently had not known what Press TV was as it took a long time for him to understand – after I told him that it was the English Language TV channel of the Iranian government – the equivalent of the BBC world Service.

Then he wanted to know about whether the people I work with at Press TV are extremists or have extreme opinions. Obviously I had to press him to explain what he meant by extremism. Given the British government abandoned its efforts to define the term in any legally robust way, he fared no better.

So he asked something about how many were opposed to western society. I was not impressed by this, since, as I said, most people in the world are opposed to the West, and many of them are British citizens.

And then; does Press TV support the recent ‘terrorism’ in this country?! Which terrorism, I enquired. And do you know what he said? He only said the Southport attack. That was not terrorism I said. Even his colleague butted in and agreed with me!

So we were back to finding specific examples and – put on the spot – he came up with the stabbing and car at Parliament in 2017. That, of course, was carried out by an individual who had made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia and appeared to have been inspired by an ISIS related ideology.

Before we got any further I was asked if Press TV covered incidents like this. The implication, of course, being that covering such activities might be tantamount to ‘supporting’ them.

Obviously, being a news service Press TV does cover political violence of many types, as does every other news organisation in the world.

But moving on I replied that in fact Press TV is opposed to those kind of attacks. I was on the verge of going on to say that this of course was different to the position of their colleagues in MI6 and in the government and indeed the BBC who are only too happy to collaborate in supporting ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria if it suits their perception of British foreign interests. But I let that lie.

By now we were winding down and it was pretty clear they were about to release me, even if I had taken their claim that it would be over soon with the requisite heap of salt. At the end they asked if I had anything to ask, like we were coming to the end of a job interview.

I made one statement which was that it was abundantly clear to everyone in the room that I was not a person who was concerned in the ‘commission, preparation or instigation’ of acts of terrorism.

By way of defence of the detention the officer attempted to justify it in term of a British citizens attendance at the funeral of a terrorism leader, a defence which of course worked to deny that they had effectively been instructed by others to stop me. With that we were done and I was released at 1am too late to get home except via a prohibitively expensive taxi.

It appeared abundantly clear that SO15 did not have any real idea of who I was and had not prepared any case against me. It was just a normal Schedule 7 stop.

Except of course, it wasn’t. I had openly announced on X that I was in Lebanon for the funeral and had reported from my visit to Maroun El Ras and the Iran garden, on its outskirts both of which had been totally destroyed by Zionist bombardment.

I also posted a clip of my visit to Kfar Kila showing mass destruction of civilian infrastructure wreaked by the Zionists and my discovery of a US arms firm manufactured detonation wire used in blowing up civilian houses.

I also posted on the funeral itself, including while I was stuck in traffic on the way, as I arrived in the ‘nick of time’ and as the ceremony started.

Of course all of this was very triggering for the genocidal Zionists who track any deviation for the authorised position of pretending that the genocide is not happening and that those that resist are simply ‘terrorists’.

A wide range of anonymous trolls and Zionist regime assets started mass reporting the Met Police calling for me to be arrested and jailed. I know they say that the Zionists don’t have much power, but bouncing the Met into detaining a journalist on assignment seems like power of some sort.

Here is a select list of Zionist agents and assets who called for me to be arrested:

• Gary Spedding the Zionist asset who poses as being pro-Palestine – 23 February 1.44pm
• Sabrina Miller, Daly Mail journalist and former student at Bristol University – 23 February 2.09pm
• Labour Against Anti Semitism (LAAS) – 23 February 7.41 pm
• Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) – 24 February 1.15pm

All of the above were involved in one way or another in the campaign to have me sacked at Bristol, a decision that the Employment Tribunal found was flawed and unjustified, in its ‘landmark’ decision.

This was all topped off by reports on Monday in the Mail (published at 5 to one in the morning just as Monday 24th began) and later (at 5.25 pm) in the Telegraph. This latter report cited the fanatical Zionist Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, who was reported as saying: “David Miller isn’t even bothering to hide his anti-Semitism any more.

He’s now openly boasting of his support for a proscribed terrorist group. It’s shocking that for so long he held a senior position at Bristol University.” Of course no actual ‘antisemitism’ was on display, and I said no words capable of being construed as ‘openly boasting’ of ‘support’ for Hezbollah.

Jenrick has form a far as I am concerned in that he has in the past spent a not inconsequential amount of time trying to have me sacked from my post at Bristol. For example, when he was Housing minister he directly bullied the University of Bristol over my case.

The report ended by saying that the paper had (like the Mail claimed too) contacted me for comment. The facts are that I have had no such query from the Telegraph or from the Mail.

I must say that I did enjoy the column the next day by Stephen Pollard who presided over a significant number of libel defeats in his role as editor of the Jewish Chronicle.  ‘Opening a communication from’ me back then he says was like ‘ingesting poison’. My parents would be proud.

What, self-evidently, happened in this instance was that the Zionist pressure worked its way through and an order to detain was issued. As to whether it came from the top of the counter Terrorism Command, the Home Office or elsewhere, we don’t know as yet.

But it is very much of a piece with the general picture post October 7 2023, which is that there is intense Zionist pressure on the counter terrorism and policing apparatus to weaponise both hate crime laws and terrorism legislation.

It is perfectly plain, as I have shown elsewhere that this pressure from Zionist lobby and intimidation groups and pressure from Zionist aligned politicians like Michael Gove, Suella Braverman, Stuart Polak, Robert Halton and the aforementioned Robert Jenrick, more than adequately explains all of the alleged rise in ‘antisemitism’ as well as almost all of the uses of the many Terrorism Acts on the statute books to oppress and repress those who will stand with the Palestinians in virtually any way.

And in recent months the attacks have widened to journalists, who’s historically recognised craft implies that they can report on all events without being attacked directly by the state.

But now, after Richard Medhurst, Sarah Wilkinson, Asa Winstanley and most recently Ali Abunimah, it is clear that journalists too are direct targets of the Zionists operating as they do via the allegedly sovereign justice apparatus of Western states.

David Miller is the producer and co-host of Press TV’s weekly Palestine Declassified show. He was sacked from Bristol University in October 2021 over his Palestine advocacy.

February 27, 2025 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Hamas, Hezbollah, Human rights, UK, Zionism | Leave a comment