Glyn Gaskarth: We must respond to Hizb ut Tahrir's declaration of war on America

Glyn Gaskarth served as election aide to Oliver Letwin MP in the 2001 General Election, Special Advisor to David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, in 2006 and has written for Policy Exchange.

Hizb ut Tahrir’s Pakistan branch has effectively declared war on America (as reported by the Civitas think tank). Labour promised to ban Hizb ut Tahrir in August 2005. However, Hizb ut Tahrir is still legal in Britain. This group preaches Islamic worldwide domination. It endangers the cohesion of our community. It threatens our long term security. We do not need more Government excuses. We know this group is a threat. We must ban it now.

Hizb ut Tahrir’s constitution is completely opposed to the tolerant Britain we wish to create. It prescribes the death penalty for apostates (Article 7) and wants to ban all parties not founded on Islam e.g. the Labour and Conservative party (Article 102). Non Muslims will not be allowed to vote (Article 105) and will face a discriminatory tax (Article 140). Britain is to be abolished and incorporated into a new Islamic caliphate. Until Britain becomes part of this Caliphate, it along with America, France and Russia is listed as one of the “potentially belligerent states” on the path to the Caliphate. Therefore, this group advocates the abolition of our state, second class status for most of our citizens and  is contemplating conflict with our country. Now we can reveal that the groups Pakistan branch has formally advocated attacks on America, our major ally. This is a group that is legal in Britain and thereby able to fundraise and recruit. Our Government needs to respond appropriately.

The current response has been confused. The pledge to ban Hizb ut Tahrir has been discarded. This group is now being monitored. This is to say we watch while British Muslim youth is indoctrinated to hate our country. Opponents of a ban cite three reasons for their stance. They suggest the group is not linked with terrorism, that it is small and powerless and that free societies should allow non violent criticism however extreme. These reasons no longer hold water. Let us now explore why each of these objections to a ban is wrong.