The Rightful Acquittal of Tommy Robinson Exposes Britain’s Double Standards in Counter-Terrorism

London — CAGE acknowledges the rightful acquittal of far-right activist Tommy Robinson under the UK’s Schedule 7 counter-terrorism powers - a rare instance where a court has recognised the misuse of these sweeping laws. Yet this same outcome throws into sharp relief the racial and ideological bias at the heart of Britain’s security state.

The focal point of Robinson’s case was his refusal to provide police access to his phone after being stopped at the Channel Tunnel. The court ruled that the stop itself was discriminatory, and was based on “what he stood for and his beliefs” - an outcome that we welcome on a matter of principle. At the same time, it is also true that this is a decision consistently denied to Muslims, who have long argued that these very powers are discriminatory, arbitrary, and used to target them for their faith and political views.

For years, CAGE and our clients have challenged Schedule 7 on precisely these grounds. Muslim travellers are stopped regularly without cause, interrogated about their beliefs, and forced to surrender devices containing private or legally privileged material. Their challenges have been dismissed - their discrimination deemed speculative, their privacy sacrificed to the altar of “national security.”

Our Managing Director, Muhammad Rabbani, was himself convicted under Schedule 7 for refusing to hand over passwords to protect the confidential testimony of a torture survivor - a conviction that demonstrated how these powers criminalise integrity and conscience. More recently, French publisher Ernest Moret was arrested under the same powers for refusing to unlock his phone, only for the Metropolitan Police to later pay damages and admit wrongdoing.

In the ongoing case of solicitor Fahad Ansari, who was stopped on the basis of his clients and legal work, the court rejected identical arguments about discrimination and legal privilege. Yet when Tommy Robinson - a white, far-right provocateur - made the same arguments, the court ruled in his favour. With ease, the judge acknowledged what Muslims have been saying for two decades: that Schedule 7 enables ideologically driven, arbitrary policing under extraordinary terrorism powers. The contrast could not be clearer.

This contradiction exposes not only the racism embedded within Britain’s counter-terrorism framework, but also the authoritarian infrastructure that has been quietly normalised under its cover. Schedule 7 grants the state the power to detain, interrogate, and seize property from anyone, without suspicion or oversight - powers typical of regimes Britain claims to oppose. For decades, anti-Muslim prejudice has served as the convenient justification for these excesses, while the very institutions meant to check state overreach: Parliament, the media, and the judiciary, have remained largely silent under pressure from the security lobby.

It is a grim irony that a street agitator, bankrolled by tech billionaires with deep ties to the surveillance industry, has now forced the courts to recognise what so-called defenders of liberty refused to confront: that Schedule 7 is an authoritarian power, incompatible with democracy.

Anas Mustapha, Head of Public Advocacy at CAGE, said:

“CAGE has opposed Schedule 7 from the very beginning because it is a fundamentally unjust power - suspicionless, invasive, and incompatible with the rule of law.

Tommy Robinson’s acquittal only proves what Muslims have been saying for years: that this legislation is weaponised against them. When a white, far-right agitator is treated as a victim of discrimination under counter-terror laws, while Muslims are criminalised for the same argument, it exposes how deeply racist and hypocritical the system has become.

This ruling should not be seen as a vindication of Robinson, but as a damning indictment of Schedule 7 itself. It cannot be reformed. It must be abolished.”

[ENDS]

Photo by Ethan Wilkinson on Unsplash