Rebel groups ousted Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria on Sunday after 13 years of civil war.

The UK Government now faces having to decide whether to lift a ban it placed on Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) after it swept to power if it needs to hold talks with the country’s new leaders.

– What is HTS and why is the group banned in the UK?

The Islamist militant group was set up under a different name, Jabhat al-Nusra, in 2011 as a direct affiliate of al Qaida, with so-called Islamic State (IS) leaders also reportedly involved in its formation.

The group has been regarded as one of the most effective and deadly of the groups ranged against President Assad.

HTS is banned in the UK because of its past association with al Qaida, the terrorist organisation once led by Osama bin Laden.

The group was added to the Home Office’s list of proscribed terrorist organisations in 2017, with the department saying HTS “should be treated as alternative names for the organisation which is already proscribed under the name al Qaida”.

But its leader Abu Mohammed al-Golani is said to have cut ties with al Qaida years ago and has sought to present his group as a more moderate and inclusive organisation. Although some still have doubts over whether HTS has completely renounced its links with al Qaida.

– What does it mean when a group is proscribed?

When the Government considers a group should be banned as a terrorist organisation, it puts an order before Parliament for a vote which would make joining or interacting with the group illegal under terror laws.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism – which could mean it plans, encourages, participates or commits acts of terrorism – and the ban would be “proportionate”.

Around 80 groups are proscribed in the UK.

Home Office guidance issued earlier this year said proscription means “belonging to, inviting support for and displaying articles in a public place in a way that arouses suspicion of membership or support for the group” will be a criminal offence.

Under terror laws, it is an offence to “arrange or manage” a meeting “in the knowledge that it is to support a proscribed organisation, to further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation” – which could make it difficult for the Government to hold talks with the new leadership in Syria if the ban remains in place.

Criminals convicted of proscription offences could face up to 14 years behind bars or be fined, according to the department, while resources of a proscribed organisation are considered “terrorist property” and could be seized.

– Can proscription of a group be removed?

Yes, but Home Office guidance states the Home Secretary will consider what is known as deproscription on “application only”.

Under terror laws, the organisation or anyone affected by the proscription “can submit a signed, written application to the Home Secretary requesting that they consider whether a specified organisation should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations”.

The application must set out the grounds on which the claim is made, with the Home Secretary being required to make a decision within 90 days from the day after it is received.

Applicants can appeal against the decision if deproscription is rejected by going to the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (POAC) and then take their case to the Court of Appeal if that request also fails.

The organisation will be removed from the list of proscribed groups if deproscription is successful but in some cases where this is as a result of an appeal it would need to be agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

It is unclear whether the Home Secretary can also move to lift a ban without receiving an application.

– Will HTS be removed from the UK’s proscribed terror groups list now it has gained control in Syria?

At the moment we do not know.

Cabinet minister Pat McFadden suggested a decision on lifting the ban could be made quickly if there was a need to hold talks with HTS.

But so far the Home Office has not confirmed whether the matter is being reviewed and – if it is being reconsidered – when a decision on if ministers will announce they are removing the proscription rules will be made.

Former head of MI6 Sir John Sawers told Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips it would be “rather ridiculous” if the UK was unable to engage with new leadership in Syria because of proscription of HTS dating back 12 years.

“I think the Home Secretary will be asking MI5 and the joint terrorism assessment centre for a review of the situation about Tahrir al-Sham and whether it should remain on the proscribed entity list,” he added.

Downing Street said on Monday that the Government keeps the list of proscribed organisations “under regular review”.

It is “long-standing policy that we do not engage with proscribed organisations” but it is an “evolving situation”, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman added.

We received correspondence from the Middle East Eye (MEE) web-site which was not only bizarre, it promoted a conspiratorial line of questioning where the journalist explicitly made a link between Government support to counter extremism and promote shared values through the Building Stronger Britain Together (BSBT) programme and how “the government is using public funds to support political attacks on the leader of the opposition”. This is what the journalist, (Simon Hooper), wrote in his e-mail – that there was a covert plan by Government to attack the leader of the opposition. It was suggested by him that Faith Matters and Muslims Against Antisemitism (MAAS) were involved in this conspiracy theory.

Given the nature of his questions, we wanted to stipulate the following publicly, (unlike groups like Middle East Eye who have repeatedly deflected questions on where their funding comes from).

Faith Matters has received no funding from the Prevent programme, unlike other groups who have been heavily funded and who continue to deny that funding whilst working with Muslim communities. At the very least these organisations should be open about it, as it tackles risk to our communities and country. We have received no social media training via the Home Office, unlike other organisations and we are proud to have developed Muslims Against Antisemitism, which receives no Government funding. Furthermore, we have received no assistance in counter-messaging from the Home Office.

Hooper’s theory that the Government is funding an anti-Corbyn campaign is not only perverse, it brings into question how such a twisted conspiracy could have been formulated.

Faith Matters has responded to the allegation and line of questioning in the below manner (in bold), which Middle East Eye journalist, Simon Hooper, purposefully claims he is not going to cite in his e-mail to us. It was the explicit comment below that he was instructed to use as our response and which he says he is not going to. So, the question we ask, is why not? Why is the Middle East Eye not willing to be transparent about its own funding or which state that money emanates from?

The response we gave him was:

“Given the irony that it is MEE who are apparently the beneficiary of political or State funding, it would be wholly inappropriate for us to provide any response to your unfounded and potentially defamatory assertions.”

Instead, by-passing our explicit statement, Hooper said that he would use a statement that was marked as private and confidential by our solicitor. Breaking a trust, (hardly good practice from from a journalist), he stated in an e-mail that he would use the following comment from our defamation and libel solicitor:

“Faith Matters received (BSBT support) from the Home Office and acts without fear or favour in its criticisms of anyone including politicians or political parties whose words or actions risk stirring up anti-religious hatred. It does so, and will continue to do so, from wherever such words or actions emanate”.

The BSBT programme is separate to the counter-terrorism strategy and was developed to build resilient communities against all forms of extremism. We utilized that funding to counter far right and online extremism and promote civil society and democratic engagement to young people, hardly any secretive ploy to attack Jeremy Corbyn.

Given that a number of our staff have been subjected to repeated and long-term threats, intimidation and abuse, we made a decision not to highlight this support publicly, but did do so to partner organisations and those working within the anti-extremism (far right) activities, so that they were aware. This is perfectly reasonable given the long term threats to colleagues and to our organisation, including threats to mob our offices by anti-Muslim activists.

Faith Matters has been and will continue to be critical of the poor way in which antisemitism has been tackled within the Labour Party and the way that Jeremy Corbyn has linked up with groups who have a very poor track record of relationships with communal Jewish organisations. Correspondingly, we have consistently been critical of the Conservative Party and their lack of transparency and action around stamping out anti-Muslim bigotry within parts of their membership base. Notably, Middle East Eye have missed this element out and focused on the former. 

It is also interesting to note what respected BBC journalist Daniel Sandford said of the Middle East Eye in August 2019:

“The story about the Home Office secretly funding the “This is woke” social media brand was brought to us by Middle East Eye, whose funder is unknown. Sigh. They are all at it.”

He then added:

“Basically what you do is run a “news” or “issues” web-site or brand. Put all kinds of content interesting to your target audience on it, and then slip in hidden messages or a deliberate editorial slant.”

Sandford clearly understood MEE is about.

Financing of Middle East Eye

Little information can be found on the funding sources of Middle East Eye. David Hearst, the MEE’s editor in Chief who was a former foreign correspondent for The Guardian has refused to highlight where the site’s financing comes from. He has previously stated that it comes from “individual private donors”. So much for the transparency that they try and enforce on others.

Hearst has previously written articles somewhat fawningly entitled, “It’s open season on the Muslim Brotherhood” and “Why the West Cannot Afford to Ignore Political Islam”.

In an article for Middle East Monitor (MEMO) in February 2019, Hearst commented on the cancelling of a Parliamentary room booked for the controversial Chris Williamson MP where the film ‘WitchHunt’, sympathetic to Labour activist Jackie Walker was to be shown. Hearst stated:

“The debate about antisemitism in the Labour Party is all about Israel, and whether indeed anti-Zionism is antisemitic”.

He also went onto add:

“The problem lies with the Board of Deputies (of British Jews) which claims to speak for all Jews in Britain. These are the leaders who have appointed themselves judge, jury and hangman in each and every allegation of antisemitism”.

For Hearst to reject what was at its heart calls to tackle antisemitism in Labour, betrays any empathy or understanding for Jewish Members of Parliament like Luciana Berger, Louise Ellman or Ruth Smeeth MP.

Additionally, Hearst’s attack on a respected communal organization where Board members are elected and held accountable by members of Jewish communities, was not only uncalled for, it deflected from the abhorrent and misjudged comments by Walker who previously said:

“In terms of Holocaust Day, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Holocaust Day was open to all people who experience Holocaust?”

This seems like a noble sentiment and when challenged that Holocaust Memorial Day included other genocides such as Rwanda and Srebrenica, she stated that it was not ‘advertised’ as such – which was patently untrue.

The Director of Middle East Eye – Jamal Bassasso

Al Jazeera (AJ) connections with Middle East Eye also should raise eyebrows as to who finances this outlet? The Director of Middle East Eye Ltd is Jamal Bassasso who was a former director of planning and human resources at Al Jazeera. It is also known that Jonathan Powell, who worked with Al Jazeera since 2009, was one of the founding members who supported the infrastructural set up of Middle East Eye. Powell worked for around 6 months to support the set up of MEE before returning to Doha to carry on his work for Al Jazeera.

Bassasso was a former director for  Samalink, which in turn was the registered agent for the website of the Hamas linked Al Quds TV. Hamas’ antisemitism is well known, and let us not forget that Hamas recently saluted Jeremy Corbyn for his support for a pro-Palestinian rally in which a speaker stated that Jewish organisations are ‘in the gutter’ and are ‘part of the problem’.

Al Jazeera and the state that funds it (Qatar), through its associations with some of the individuals mentioned above need to be highlighted. Remember this is the same state (Qatar) that gave sanctuary to one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s religious leadership, one Yusuf-Al-Qaradawi, who has been barred entry into the UK. It is precisely individuals like Qaradawi who have promoted antisemitism where he has issued fatwas authorizing attacks on all Jews. On Al-Jazeera Arabic in January 2009, he said:

“Oh God, take Your enemies, the enemies of Islam….oh God, take the treacherous Jewish aggressors….Oh God, count their numbers, slay them one by one and spare none”.

It is precisely this kind of hatred that Muslims Against Antisemitism (MAAS) was developed to challenge. Individuals like Qaradawi who were previously feted by the likes of Ken Livingstone need to be challenged and when leaders like Corbyn attend events in Doha in 2012, where in an interview with the Iranian state funded Press TV, he praised his ‘brothers’ – some of whom were speakers from questionable organisations, MAAS will challenge and hold to account such two faced leadership. At this very conference was Khaled Meshaal, Hamas’ political voice and Dr Abdul Aziz Umar who was given seven life sentences for his role in a Jerusalem suicide bombing.

So let’s be clear; Corbyn’s approach on tackling antisemitism has been abysmal and duplicitous. Until Jewish members and individuals feel that they have a home in Labour and until they feel that the leadership demonstrates tackling this hate, we will continue to critique this kind of behaviour. Attempts by sites like Middle East Eye to intimidate and bully us will not be tolerated. Muslims Against Antisemitism will continue to speak out as will Faith Matters which was founded on building better relations between Muslims and Jews; this is something that we know Corbyn has yet to enact through his actions. Instead he chooses to play off one community against the other.

Many Labour MP’s and members support our work. They have done so for many years and they continue to do so because we have challenged those who seek to divide and play off communities.

Finally, conspiracy theories suggesting that the BSBT programme is a covert mechanism to undermine Corbyn through not-for-profit organisations is not only perverse, it reeks of conspiracies that form the bedrock of parts of the hard left today. We don’t need to be critical of Corbyn or Boris Johnson for that matter because of a ‘higher’ plan. It is pretty simple; Corbyn has failed Labour and the leadership needed by many. This country needs a strong opposition. It needs a Labour Party that can hold the Executive and the Government to account, particularly at this turbulent time. For us, it is clear that Corbyn has fallen short of providing that.

Convicted criminal Anjem Choudary who was found guilty of telling British citizens to join ISIS, is to be released this week. He will be living in a tax-payer funded safe house in North London and we have learnt that he will be living within reach of his wife and family, so that his human rights are not infringed.

Yet, this very man has never cared about the human rights of others. He has been the poisonous inspiration for young men who have gone on to murder and maim others and his decades of  Islamist agitation have caused enormous tensions and further fuelled far right activism, as some people thought that his views represented all Muslims. They clearly did not.

Just a few days ago, former EDL member, Ivan Humble made clear on a Newsnight interview about child grooming and the rise of the far right, that he was inspired to join the English Defence League since he believed that Anjem Choudary reflected the views of Muslims in general.

Choudary has used the legal and democratic process, to circumvent arrest for years and is now in the process of being released half-way through his sentence. Granted, he is under severe and restrictive conditions but the Government’s inability to stop his release, raises many questions. Why for example, is he being released half-way through his sentence? On what basis is this being done and does the Government realise that his early release is a gift for Islamist and far right groups. Both will use this opportunity, with Islamist extremists suggesting that Choudary has resisted the Government and ‘stood up against them’, whilst far right extremist groups will once again, make out that the Government is not working for the general public’s safety and that the Government is in cahoots with Muslims. This will be their narrative.

This whole affair leaves a foul taste in the mouth. How can a man who has been a driver for Islamist extremism be released half-way through his sentence? His actions have been a national security threat, yet he will now live in London, enjoying access to his family and living at the tax-payers expense.

If we are to send out a message to extremists that they will be given no quarter to spread their poison, the release of Choudary makes a mockery of this. This whole affair has shown how weak we are when many Muslims themselves, do not want this man released until he serves his whole sentence.

To his detractors, including the British government, Salman Butt is an extremist whose views on Islam fly in the face of Britain’s values and help foster an atmosphere where young Muslims can be radicalised by militants.

Even though he is not accused of supporting militant groups or violence, the British authorities believe it is only by cracking down on activists like Butt and denying a forum for their ideas to be widely heard that the threat posed by jihadis and groups such as Islamic State can be countered.

But critics, ranging from civil rights groups to leading academics and lawmakers, say what the government is trying to do amounts to a curb on free speech which could drive a wedge between the authorities and Britain’s 2.8 million Muslims

They argue if anything such plans will only make the problem worse and amount to an attack on the fundamental liberties the government wants to protect.

“Over the last few years the circle of who and what is considered extreme has been expanding slowly,” said Butt, 30, who is taking the British government to court over its counter-extremism strategy.

“Before it was just somebody committing crimes or calling for violence and then they expanded more and more to everyday people who happen to maybe criticise certain aspects of the government policy or hold certain conservative Islamic views,” he told Reuters.

The problem facing Britain and other Western governments is the same one with which they have wrestled since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States: how to stop their young citizens being radicalised without been seen to censor critics.

Thousands of Muslims, including more than 800 Britons, have left Europe for Iraq and Syria, many to join Islamic State (IS), while the recent deadly attacks seen in Paris, Brussels and Nice are a graphic illustration of the risk posed by some lured to a violent Islamist cause at home.

The revelation on Tuesday that Anjem Choudary, Britain’s most high-profile Islamist preacher, has been convicted for inviting his followers to support Islamic State has again brought the issue to the fore.

Choudary was convicted last month although this could not be reported until Tuesday to avoid prejudicing the jury in a separate case. It ended a streak of many years during which he served as the leader of banned organisations but dodged prosecution by carefully managing his public remarks.

Critics questioned why it had taken so long to act against someone who had been a leading radical Islamist figure for two decades and whose followers had been involved in militant plots and acts of violence across the world.

“There should be zero tolerance towards any cleric – Muslim or otherwise – who advocates extremist views and rejects British values,” Britain’s top-selling Sun newspaper said. “Britain has been tolerant of men like Choudary for too long.”

WHO IS AN EXTREMIST?

For those such as new British Prime Minister Theresa May, tackling extremism means no longer tolerating those who reject the country’s values: democracy, free speech, equality and the rule of law.

“Where non-violent extremism goes unchallenged, the values that bind our society together fragment,” May, who had been interior minister for six years before taking over the Downing Street reins, said in a speech in February.

“So while by no means all extremism leads to violence, it creates an environment in which those who seek to divide us can flourish.”

May, in her former guise as interior minister, was responsible for drawing up a proposed Counter-Extremism bill with bans for individuals or groups deemed extremist and closures of places where radicals thrive, including mosques.

However, there is still no sign of the legislation, with the Home Office (interior ministry) saying it would come in “due course”. One main obstacle is who decides who or what is extremist.

“Providing a clear definition of extremism is a difficult task and the government has yet to succeed in doing it,” said senior opposition Labour lawmaker Harriet Harman, head of the UK parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights which produced a critical report on the government plans in July.

Even Finance Minister Philip Hammond admitted in May the issue was “a minefield”: “The line between acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour is fine and fraught with dangers,” he said.

“HATE SPEAKER”

Last September, Butt, 30, who runs a discussion website Islam21c, was one of the first to fall foul of the moves to clampdown on non-violent extremists after being identified by a secretive cross-government Extremism Analysis Unit, established to pick out groups or individuals of concern.

The activist, who has a biochemistry doctorate, was named in a Downing Street press release on “hate speakers” as one of six figures who gave talks at university campuses and were “on record as expressing views contrary to British values”.

A later explanation given by the government to parliament said he had appeared to compare homosexuality to paedophilia and had spoken alongside figures from CAGE, a campaign group that gained attention for contacts with Mohammed Emwazi, the now-dead British militant known as “Jihadi John” who appeared in Islamic State videos beheading foreign captives.

Butt said the accusations against him were “complete rubbish”, and is now taking legal action to challenge the government’s way of identifying extremists and its “Prevent” strategy, its much-criticised policy to stop radicalisation.

“What has happened over the last 10 years of counter-terrorism policy is it’s completely going about it in a very destructive way,” he said.

“The government need to do a job to keep people safe but the way it’s being done, especially recently, not only are they looking in the wrong place … but they are completely ignoring the negative effects it’s having on community relations.”

It is not just those like Butt who are targeted that are concerned. In January, Professor Louise Richardson, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, said it was better to let extremists speak on campuses and challenge their views than to simply ban them.

David Anderson, Britain’s terrorism law watchdog, has warned that plans to clamp down on individuals and organisations accused of extremism could backfire by playing into the hands of militant recruiters.

“FREE PASS”

But those who back the government’s intent say allowing extremists free rein in public forums or at universities exposes vulnerable people to their messages. They point out that graduates or students at British universities have been involved in numerous militant plots including Emwazi and Nigerian “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Rupert Sutton, director of Student Rights, an organisation that campaigns against extremism on university campuses, said people with controversial views were often given a platform where their opinions were not questioned.

“They’re too often given a free pass,” he told Reuters. “If you put it as a dichotomy between either freedom of expression or ban them from speaking that is too binary. What we need to think about is how we are going to make it so that when they do come to speak they face challenge rather than being banned.”

He said the focus should be on using existing legislation to tackle people like Choudary, even if he had long proved adept at ensuring he did not break the law.

“When someone is as effective at it as Choudary is, you are going to get people saying: ‘How is he allowed to go around on the street doing this?'” he said.