Based on Pete Gregson’s talk of 30th May 2026 at www.tiny.cc/hamastalk
The following has been rewritten for fact-checking and legal reasons.
For nearly three years of pro-Palestinian demonstrations across Britain, one subject has often remained largely absent from public discussion: Hamas.
That silence is not surprising. Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom and expressions of support for the group can carry serious legal consequences. Yet there remains an important distinction between supporting a proscribed organisation and arguing that its proscription should be reviewed or removed.
Under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000, organisations can apply for de-proscription, and individuals are legally entitled to campaign for such a review. It is on that basis that campaigners have sought to challenge the UK’s decision to classify Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
Following the events of 7 October 2023, Pete Gregson launched a petition calling on the Home Secretary to reconsider Hamas’s status. After being unable to pursue the matter through Parliament’s petition system, he took the campaign directly to the public, distributing thousands of leaflets and collecting signatures at demonstrations around Britain. According to the campaign, more than 1,400 people signed the petition, which was subsequently delivered to Downing Street.
The experience highlights an important point often overlooked in public debate: campaigning for de-proscription is not itself unlawful. Despite concerns from critics and warnings from some politicians, no legal action was taken against those involved in submitting the petition.
Alongside grassroots efforts, a more formal legal challenge was launched by Riverway Law on behalf of Hamas. The application argued that proscription should be reconsidered on several grounds, including freedom of expression and the practical implications of banning a movement that has governed Gaza since 2007.
Supporters of de-proscription frequently point to the distinction that once existed between Hamas’s political and military wings. Britain’s original ban focused on the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s armed wing. In 2021, however, the UK government extended proscription to the entire organisation, arguing that the distinction between political and military activities had become untenable.
Critics argue that this decision restricts discussion about a significant political actor within Palestinian society. They note that Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and remains an influential force in Gaza. Supporters of proscription respond that Hamas has carried out or endorsed attacks against civilians over many years and therefore meets the legal criteria for designation as a terrorist organisation.
The debate inevitably extends into history. Hamas emerged during the First Intifada in 1987 from networks associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Over time it developed from a religious and social movement into a major political and armed organisation. The group opposed the Oslo peace process and later won elections in 2006 before taking full control of Gaza following violent clashes with Fatah in 2007.
Those advocating engagement with Hamas frequently draw comparisons with other conflicts. They note that negotiations with groups once regarded as terrorists, including republican organisations in Northern Ireland and the African National Congress in South Africa, ultimately formed part of peace processes. They argue that any lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will require engagement with political forces that command significant support among Palestinians.
However, many of the arguments surrounding Hamas remain highly contested.
The original campaign document contains claims regarding the events of 7 October 2023, including allegations about the extent of Israeli responsibility for deaths during the attacks and assertions that reports of widespread sexual violence have been discredited. These claims remain disputed and are not accepted by most governments, international investigators or mainstream reporting. Multiple investigations have concluded that Hamas-led attackers were responsible for the overwhelming majority of the approximately 1,200 deaths on 7 October, while evidence of sexual violence has been documented by international bodies, although the full extent remains debated.
Similarly, the claim that “80% of countries” do not regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation is broadly true in the sense that only a minority of states formally designate Hamas as a terrorist group. However, the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Canada, Australia and several other countries maintain such designations. The United Nations itself does not operate a comprehensive global terrorist list and therefore neither designates nor de-designates Hamas.
The wider question remains unresolved: can a durable peace be achieved while excluding Hamas from political negotiations, or does engagement risk legitimising violence against civilians?
Some people disagree. For some, Hamas’s record of armed attacks makes dialogue impossible until the organisation fundamentally changes. For others, refusing to engage with a movement that retains substantial support among Palestinians merely guarantees further deadlock.
What is undeniable is that the issue raises difficult questions about free speech, counter-terrorism law, democracy and conflict resolution. Whether one agrees with the campaign for de-proscription or not, the debate itself is lawful and it touches on some of the most challenging political questions facing Britain and the ‘Middle East‘ today.
Call for a De-Proscription of Hamas
