In a deeply controversial move, the British government has officially announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action, a nonviolent protest group, under the UK’s anti-terror legislation, placing it in the same legal category as extremist groups such as ISIS. The decision follows a recent incident where activists spray-painted two military planes with red paint at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, prompting swift condemnation from authorities and triggering fierce debate about protest rights and civil liberties.
“We have a democratic duty to prevent the crime of genocide and these activists are courageous enough to engage in non violent civil disobedience towards that end. Political dissent in the cause of peace is not terrorism.”
Sign the petition against proscription: https://chng.it/GMwMhf65JX
On Monday, 23 June, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper stated she had decided to pursue the ban under anti-terrorism laws, branding Palestine Action’s recent action at Brize Norton as “disgraceful” and “the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by the group.” She clarified, however, that the proposed ban would be specific to Palestine Action and would not impact other lawful protest groups or organisations campaigning on Palestine or Middle East issues.
Despite widespread confusion fueled by media reports and social media claims suggesting the group had already been banned, the proposed proscription order had not yet come into effect as of Thursday, 26 June. The draft order is scheduled to be presented in Parliament on Monday, 30 June, requiring approval from both Houses before coming into force. Once enacted, the ban would criminalize membership and support for Palestine Action, with penalties of up to 14 years in prison and/or significant fines. Even displaying symbols or clothing that suggest support for the group could lead to penalties of up to six months in prison and/or fines of £5,000.
Journalist and commentator Owen Jones sharply criticized the government’s move, warning, “The British government’s decision to ban Palestine Action under anti-terror legislation should absolutely terrify you. It represents a crucial landmark in Britain’s descent into naked authoritarianism.” He highlighted that Palestine Action operates within a tradition of nonviolent civil disobedience and direct action, comparing their actions to historical movements like the suffragettes, who engaged in far more extreme tactics yet are now celebrated for their role in securing democratic freedoms.
Jones noted, “Describing Palestine Action as a terrorist organization as though they are ISIS is completely deranged. ISIS kills people. Palestine Action damages property to oppose genocide.” He emphasized that activists were motivated by opposition to British complicity in violence, particularly related to arms sales to Israel, which activists argue contributes directly to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Civil liberties advocate Zoe Gardner reinforced Jones’s arguments, recalling historical precedents where similar activist actions, including attempts to sabotage military equipment to prevent war crimes, resulted in acquittals. She emphasized, “Their intention is not terrorism but rather to prevent war crimes. Labeling them as terrorists is a serious threat to civil liberties.”
Adding to the controversy, Independent MP Zarah Sultana expressed solidarity with Palestine Action in a social media post, leading some to falsely accuse her of supporting a proscribed group. Jonathan Hall KC, the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, clarified that no offences had yet been committed as the proscription does not operate retrospectively. Former Independent Reviewer Sir Max Hill KC echoed these clarifications, reinforcing the fundamental principle that actions prior to proscription could not be criminalized retroactively.
Former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf called the planned proscription “a shameful abuse of anti-terror legislation,” highlighting the broader implications for democratic rights. Palestine Action itself labeled the government’s move as “unhinged,” strongly rejecting claims of terrorism.
The media landscape has further muddied public understanding, with several outlets, including Politico and ITV News, initially misrepresenting the status of the ban. These outlets later corrected their headlines and content following clarification requests by fact-checking organisations.
Activists and civil liberties groups continue to mobilize in opposition to the proposed proscription, emphasizing the dangerous precedent it sets in criminalizing protest and legitimate dissent. The broader context, including the UK’s history of increasingly stringent protest laws and growing global attention on human rights abuses in Gaza, makes this decision particularly significant.
As Parliament prepares for debate on the draft order, the controversy surrounding Palestine Action’s proposed proscription underscores profound concerns about democratic freedoms and the rights of individuals and groups to challenge government complicity in international injustices.
