Official Anti-Extremism Review Recommends Arrests for Celebrating Terrorism

Protesters in Trafalgar Square, central London, during a pro-Palestine march organised by Stop the War Coalition and Palestine Solidarity Campaign on Oct. 21, 2023. (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

Celebrating terrorist acts or praising proscribed groups should be viewed as a form of “indirect encouragement” of terrorism resulting in arrest and prosecution, the government’s anti-extremism adviser has recommended.

Lord Walney’s review on political violence and disruption released on Tuesday said the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) should interpret and apply the law on encouraging terrorism more “broadly,” so that glorifying terror “would be an offence without the condition of encouraging others to engage in the commission or preparation of terrorism.”

He said that if courts do not support this interpretation of current legislation, “the Government should keep under review the introduction a summary-only terrorism offence that explicitly prohibits the celebrating, praising, glorifying, or endorsing of acts of terrorism, proscribed terrorist groups, or terrorists.”

The peer found that there were only a “few cases” before the courts of those who had celebrated the Oct. 7 attacks and “showed their approval for further jihadist violence” at anti-Israel protests.

Lord Walney said this “does make the case that something is not functioning well in the justice system.”

He said that much of this rests on the fact that legislation on glorification in the Terrorism Act 2006 “is not about glorification in and of itself.”

Rather it “criminalises the encouragement of terrorism, with glorification being one way that an offender could indirectly encourage others to commit terrorism offences.”

He suggested that the way in which legislation is currently being interpreted means glorification of terrorism would need to be in a manner that “could be understood as encouragement to terrorism.”

The anti-extremism tsar said this presented a situation where either those voicing support for attacks are breaking the law and the CPS and police are “interpreting the law far too narrowly,” or there is a difference between what the public and many politicians believe should be illegal and what is illegal.

Transparency in Charging Decisions

In his wide-ranging review on extremism, public disruption, and political violence, the independent adviser recommended a series of changes to “protect our democratic values from intimidation.”

Raising again the issue of the small number of protest attendees being prosecuted for supporting terrorism, Lord Walney advised the government to develop a transparent mechanism to review police and CPS charging decisions “to ensure that public order and terrorism legislation is being appropriately implemented in respect of political protest.”

He warned that “justice may also be denied in the courts,” particularly when activists are associated with popular causes or those considered “morally righteous.”

The adviser recommended that the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice examine the “potential issue of juries acquitting defendants and judges applying laws differently when they are transgressed in the name of progressive causes like climate change and anti-racism.”

Amend Public Order Act

Lord Walney discussed the need for police to balance maintaining public order and allowing for free expression, but urged police forces to “consider the cumulative disruption” to communities and the harms done to groups, “such as the explosion of antisemitic hate crime currently being experienced by many Jewish people coinciding with the Gaza protests.”

“The Government should amend the Public Order Act 1986 to expand the grounds on which a police force can recommend a march is not permitted to go ahead on a particular date beyond the narrow grounds that it risks serious public disorder,” Lord Walney wrote, stating changes would strengthen the legal framework for responding to political violence and disruption.

Businesses and individuals who can evidence “significant personal harm or economic damage” from illegal, disruptive protests should also be able to claim damages from protest organisers through a mechanism developed by the government.

Similarly, the review recommends the government consider the viability of protest organisers contributing to policing costs “when groups are holding a significant number of large demonstrations which cause serious disruption or significant levels of law-breaking.”

Asked about the report, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: “Extremism has no place in our society. Threatening or intimidating behaviour that disrupts the lives of ordinary hardworking people isn’t acceptable.”

Home Secretary James Cleverly said he would consider Lord Walney’s report, which he said “raises important questions on the cumulative impact of disruptive and extremist activity on our communities.”

“The right to protest is a vital part of democracy, but there is absolutely no place for criminality or harassment on our streets. Too often, we have seen vile displays of hate crime and aggressive tactics used by so-called protesters,” Mr. Cleverly said.

The charity Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the report. The CAA’s Chief Executive, Gideon Falter, said in a statement seen by The Epoch Times: “We fully support his recommendations, a number of which echo proposals that we have recently made to the Home Office and other departments.

“Our criminal justice system must be brought into line, and the laws on which it operates must be brought up to date. For the Jewish community, which is at the sharp end of the threats that this report addresses, action cannot come soon enough.”

PA Media contributed to this report.

***

PA link: (for sunak’s and cleverly’s comments: https://explore.pa.media/create/events/paevent:56bed83f09a8490a4e9fb89f846c314937f2c0577f48cb130f8b9c8837924919

***