New anti-terror powers spark outrage over free speech, press freedom, and the criminalisation of dissent…
Legal Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for the purposes of news reporting and public interest journalism. Any references to, or images of, Palestine Action—including logos, clothing, or other identifying articles—are presented strictly in a journalistic context. Their inclusion does not imply support for or affiliation with any proscribed organisation. The publisher remains neutral and does not endorse or promote the views or activities of any group mentioned.
The UK government’s designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation has ignited a political firestorm, drawing fierce criticism from civil rights groups, lawyers, and journalists. Under sweeping powers granted by the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT), activists, media workers — even casual supporters — may now face up to 14 years in prison for statements or images deemed sympathetic to the group.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed immediate enforcement of the ban, warning that officers would intervene where offences related to support for proscribed groups are committed. The announcement followed a late-night Court of Appeal ruling on Friday, rejecting a legal challenge by Palestine Action just hours before the law took effect at midnight.
“There are a number of events taking place in London this weekend,” the Met said in a statement. “Anyone attending should be aware that officers policing these will act where criminal offences, including those related to support of proscribed groups or organisations, are committed.”
Legal Risks for the Public — and for the Press
According to the Metropolitan Police, the following are now considered criminal offences under TACT:
- Section 11 – Belonging to or professing to belong to a proscribed organisation
- Section 12 – Inviting support for a proscribed organisation
- Section 12(1A) – Expressing an opinion or belief supportive of a proscribed group
- Section 12(2) – Arranging or managing meetings in support of such a group
- Section 13 – Wearing clothing or displaying articles—such as flags, signs, or logos—“in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion” of support
- Section 13(1A) – Publishing images of such articles—clothing, logos, banners, or flags—also in circumstances that suggest support
Of particular concern to journalists and editors are Sections 12(1A) and 13(1A), which critics say are dangerously vague.
“The law’s vagueness is a gift to over-policing and a threat to press freedom,” said Dr. Shazad Malik, a human rights barrister with expertise in terrorism law. “If a journalist publishes a photo of a Palestine Action protest that includes a banner or T-shirt, they may now need to prove in court that they weren’t encouraging support.”
MPs Sound the Alarm: ‘This is a War on Dissent’
Several Members of Parliament have condemned the proscription as politically motivated and dangerously broad in scope.
“This is a war on dissent,” said Zarah Sultana, Labour MP for Coventry South. “The government is criminalising direct action against war profiteering while allowing UK arms exports to fuel the slaughter in Gaza. This ban is about protecting Elbit Systems, not public safety.”
“Palestine Action is being targeted not because it is violent—but because it is effective,” said Jeremy Corbyn, Independent MP for Islington North. “This draconian ban must be challenged, and the right to protest must be defended.”
Palestine Action Responds: ‘Repression Will Not Deter Us’
In a statement following the ban, Palestine Action accused the government of “politically criminalising solidarity with Palestine.”
“We have shut down weapons factories, forced arms firms to flee this country, and revealed the UK’s deep complicity in Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people,” a spokesperson said. “This ban will not deter us. It proves only that we are being effective.”
The group said it would continue its non-violent direct action campaigns and seek legal redress through international human rights mechanisms.
Israel Lobby Influence: Behind the Ban
Mounting evidence suggests the UK government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was influenced by lobbying from Israeli diplomatic and industrial interests.
In 2023, Freedom of Information disclosures revealed that the Israeli embassy had directly contacted the UK Attorney General’s Office, urging it to intervene in prosecutions of protesters targeting Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest private arms manufacturer. Elbit, a key supplier of drones, munitions, and surveillance systems used in Gaza, has been the principal focus of Palestine Action’s campaigns. The embassy also corresponded with the Home Office, pushing for firmer action against the protest group, according to documents later partially redacted from the public record.
Civil liberties advocates and legal experts argue that these communications formed part of a wider pressure campaign to conflate non-violent protest with terrorism.
“The ban has little to do with public safety and everything to do with protecting the UK’s military-industrial ties to Israel,” said Dr. Maya Khan, a legal scholar specialising in national security law. “The Israeli government and its allies successfully reframed disruptive protest as a national threat.”
Critics also point to the timing. The proscription was announced just days after Palestine Action infiltrated RAF Brize Norton, Britain’s largest air base, exposing the UK’s logistical role in supplying weapons to Israel during its war on Gaza. The government’s framing of the group as a “threat to national security” closely followed Elbit Systems’ public complaints and renewed lobbying activity.
“The British state is criminalising dissent to shield its role in arming a regime accused of genocide,” said a spokesperson for the Defend Our Juries campaign. “This is not about law and order. It’s about political convenience.”
Opposition MPs have accused the government of acting as a proxy for Israeli interests.
“We must ask why the concerns of a foreign arms manufacturer now take precedence over the democratic rights of UK citizens,” said Labour MP Apsana Begum.
Free Speech Groups: A Dangerous Precedent
Civil liberties organisations have raised alarm at the consequences of the ban for freedom of expression and journalism.
“This proscription risks criminalising political dissent and journalism in equal measure,” said Ruth Smeeth, CEO of Index on Censorship. “It sets a dangerous precedent when a press photographer or editor has to think twice before documenting public protest for fear of arrest.”
Martha Spurrier, Director of Liberty, echoed the concern:
“This is a dangerous and disproportionate use of anti-terror powers. The government is deliberately expanding the boundaries of what counts as ‘terrorism’ to clamp down on public accountability and activism.”
Journalists: ‘We’re Being Forced to Self-Censor’
Journalists have voiced concerns about the chilling effect the ban is already having on their work.
“This feels like the final step toward criminalising investigative reporting on state-linked arms companies,” said Richard Medhurst, an independent journalist known for his reporting on UK complicity in war crimes. “We are being forced to self-censor in order to avoid being dragged into terrorism investigations.”
“If the UK government can ban journalists from showing the logo of a protest group, what’s next?” asked Rachel Blevins, a foreign correspondent and commentator. “Do we blur images of banners in protest photos? This is a direct assault on press freedom.”
Legal Adaptation Across the Media Landscape
To protect against potential prosecution, many news outlets are now adopting legal disclaimers when covering proscribed organisations. This article has done the same, explicitly framing all references to Palestine Action in the context of public interest reporting.
Legal experts further advise placing clear editorial framing around potentially sensitive images or quotes, and avoiding ambiguous headlines or captions that could be misconstrued as supportive.
International Reaction: ‘A Grim Benchmark for Democracies’
Human rights monitors outside the UK have also taken notice.
Reporters Without Borders warned that the ban sets “a grim benchmark for how liberal democracies can abuse terrorism legislation to suppress dissent.”
Amnesty International called the move “deeply troubling,” urging the UK government to reconsider a measure that could “criminalise legitimate protest and journalism under the guise of national security.”
The Bigger Picture
Palestine Action, known for its direct-action campaigns against Elbit Systems and other UK-linked arms manufacturers supplying Israel, has drawn growing support from younger activists and international observers. The government claims the group’s tactics pose a threat to public safety; critics argue it is being criminalised for exposing uncomfortable truths.
Campaign organisations such as Defend Our Juries and Stop the War Coalition have vowed to resist the ban. Protests in central London this weekend featured signs explicitly supporting Palestine Action, in what some see as a direct act of civil disobedience.
