Press Release
Proposal to Ban Hizb ut Tahrir Can Only Occur through the Introduction of a Two-Tiered Legal System

Over the last two decades, Australian federal and state governments, on all sides of the political divide, have been uncharacteristically unanimous on one thing. Despite repeated efforts by Zionist advocates to have Hizb ut Tahrir proscribed in this country, every successive government has responded unequivocally that, despite Zionist’s displeasure in our pro-Palestinian activism, there is nothing illegal about our activities.

Ordinarily, this would be the end of the discussion. But not for Zionist advocates, who are desperate to protect the criminality of the Zionist entity by outlawing any criticism of it. 

In recent years, Zionist advocates were successful in lobbying for a new category of crime called ‘advocating genocide’. This was meant to criminalise any political conversation that cast doubt on the occupation’s right to exist by framing it as an attack on Jewish self-determination. The implications being that in order to protect Jewish lives, Zionists must have the right to destroy Palestinian lives, and this criminality must be protected in law!

Zionists now seek to lower the bar even further by advocating not just for tougher hate speech laws, but for the introduction of a specific category of hate speech designed expressly to outlaw Muslim activism.

To advance this proposal, Zionist advocates are seeking to tap into the latent Islamophobic War on Terror language by insisting it is only ‘radicals’ and ‘extremists’ they want to target. But there is nothing radical in opposing occupation or genocide, with the hundreds of thousands protesting on Sydney Harbour Bridge demonstrating this call is very ‘mainstream’, which raises the question then of who exactly is the target?

In response to lobbying efforts, both the Prime Minister and the Home Affairs Minister have floated the idea of shifting the dial. The issue now is not whether Hizb ut Tahrir is violent or antisemitic. The question now is whether Hizb ut Tahrir’s political expressions are tolerable.

The Australian government, like all successive governments before it, has stated unequivocally the views and activities of Hizb ut Tahrir are entirely legal. But they have now declared they don’t like us - which is code that Zionist advocates don’t like us - and want to find a way to silence us. So they are seriously entertaining the Zionist proposal to create a specific category of crime to outlaw us today, all pro-Palestinian activism tomorrow, and who knows beyond that?

The proposal is granting the executive arm of the government the power to determine who gets to be part of the national conversation, and if the government doesn’t like you, to bypass both the parliament and the courts in violently excluding you from this conversation.

The proposal may not seem immediately alarming to many. After all, we are only talking about Muslims. Even then, only so-called ‘radicals’. We may not agree with the proposal, we may not even properly understand it, but Australia has been conditioned to suspect Muslims, so there must be some validity to the proposal?

But does anybody believe this proposed executive overreach will end with Muslims? Or is this merely normalising the silencing of activism sitting governments oppose? We saw examples of this with government overreach during Covid. We saw this with how governments punish whistle-blowers yet protect criminals. We saw this with counter-terrorism police being weaponised to menace Youtube podcasters.

This is the slippery slope we are now facing. Despite one’s views on Islam and Muslims. Despite one’s views on Hizb ut Tahrir. Despite one’s position on Palestine. Do any of us want a government deciding who can and cannot speak based on who they like or dislike? Moreover, do any of us believe Zionist advocates in this country have Australia’s interests at heart or are more concerned about rehabilitating the Zionist entity’s image even if it damages Australia’s?

Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir
in Australia