—

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Dear Mr Hymas,

Thank you for your enquiry.

Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. The move to proscribe it illustrates how politicised and malleable the term “terrorism” has become — now so broad as to border on the meaningless. It is increasingly wielded as a tool to criminalise dissent and suppress protest, rather than address any real threat to public safety. This should concern anyone who claims to uphold free speech and civil liberties — including media outlets such as your own. However, given The Telegraph’s consistent efforts to provide cover for Israeli war crimes and delegitimise those who expose them, we have no expectation that Palestine Action will receive a fair or honest hearing in your pages.

It is also noteworthy that opposition to this proscription comes from across the political and social spectrum — including groups such as the Quakers.[i] When even the Quakers are opposing you, it is a strong indication that you may be on the wrong side of history.

IHRC has consistently supported the right to protest and civil resistance, particularly where it seeks to hold governments and corporations accountable for their roles in enabling human rights abuses, such as the genocide taking place in Gaza.

You may also wish to note that even your friends at The Times — hardly known for their sympathy toward organisations like ours — recently acknowledged, in relation to our past support for Palestine Action, that “There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing in this regard.” We trust this will be accurately reflected in your coverage as well.

Your repeated and false claim that IHRC is “linked to Iran” is both tiresome and baseless. This is not the first time your outlet has attempted to smear us with this fiction — we refer you to our previous response to Camilla Turner on the same issue, which you may find instructive.[ii] At least when The Times contacts us and claims we are linked to Iran, they pretend like they have a “security source”. You guys can’t even manage that — a smear without substance or subtlety.

Let us be clear once again: there is no institutional or financial link between IHRC and any government. You have presented no evidence — because none exists. If you, or anyone else, have credible information, present it. Otherwise, continuing to repeat this accusation only shows us that your articles are propaganda rather than serious journalism. Your approach seems to follow the old Nazi mantra: Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

Our views on William Shawcross and his disturbed commentary on Muslims in Britain and Europe are not secrets. For your reference, here’s our previous response to your friends at The Times on the same point:

“You quote Shawcross and the Henry Jackson Society, whose animosity towards Muslims is so overt and unhinged, they are less poster boys for Islamophobia and more a grotesque caricature.”

Shawcross’s assertion that IHRC is “ideologically aligned” with Iran is not evidence — it is opinion, and a deeply prejudiced one at that. Given his long record of hostility toward Muslim communities — including claiming Muslims in Europe are a fifth column, his defence of torture practices like waterboarding against Muslims in Guantanamo, and his open sympathy for the Shah of Iran’s brutal dictatorship — anything he has to say about Muslims or Iran is fundamentally compromised and lacks all credibility.

Simply repeating a claim, no matter how often, does not make it true. However, it is unsurprising that the cheerleaders of Israeli war crimes now resort to tactics more often associated with propaganda than with journalism.

As a matter of policy, IHRC publishes all media correspondence in full. This ensures there is an accurate public record of the exchange, should our comments be misquoted or omitted entirely.

Regards

IHRC Media