wmlro.com: Gordon Brown opens way for challenge to inclusion on UK terrorism lists

Whilst the spat between David Cameron and Gordon Brown over allegations that two schools which received state funding is connected to a group Tony Blair said he would ban as terrorists - and then changed his mind - there's a deeper issue arising from Brown's response to Cameron's allegations.

Yesterday, Cameron said that two schools were set up with contributions from a state fund that was created for the express purpose of countering extremism. The problem, Cameron said, was that the schools had links to Hizb at Tahrir. In Parliament, Cameron said that the schools, which operate outside the state system but are subject to evaluation by the often criticised OFSTED, were controlled by "a front organisation for Hizb at Tahrir."

The schools are run by the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation or ISF and are in Slough and north London.

Brown said he would look into the allegations and just hours later Brown's former Treasury assistant Ed Balls, now in Education, reported that OFSTED had visited the schools, examined the curriculum and there was no evidence of extremism."

But the schools are a bait: the real target for Cameron is the way that the Labour administration handles matters of terrorism. He first raised the issue of Hizb ut Tahrir and its presence and activities in Britain.

He said he now wanted to know more about“ [the] extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir and why, despite an explicit promise by Tony Blair that it would be banned, it still hasn’t been banned."

Cameron also raised the issue of another group, "Islam for the UK" saying that their leaders praised the 11 September attackers and called for "blood on the streets of London and New York."

Brown told Cameron "I think you may regret some of the remarks you have made this morning."

But Brown was the one who made an off the cuff remark that may cause considerable trouble: he said "To proscribe an organisation, we need full evidence and that evidence needs to be looked at in detail in the cold light of day."

But that is not what happens.

It is ironic that his comments were made within hours of the opening of the UK government's Inquiry into the invasion of Iraq, an Inquiry which has already been told that it is not within its terms of reference to find anyone "guilty." But the question of the woefully inaccurate intelligence which has led to a long-term conflict will be reviewed.

The USA habitually proscribes organisations based on intelligence not evidence.

And the UK often simply follows the USA's lead especially when the USA secures UN backing for its lists.

There are several challenges to the UN's 1267 list based on the basic human right to seek removal from the list, a right which is denied.

Now Brown's comments imply that the UK government will require "evidence" before proscription can apply. That makes it more difficult for it to hide, as it habitually does, behind the statement "we are bound to comply with our obligations."