Palestine Action – Testing the limits of civil liberties in the UK
The labour government announced last month their intent to proscribe the group Palestine Action under anti-terror law. Any individual who signs up to be a member, or even supports the group, would essentially be committing a criminal offence. The impact of this could be significant, and calls into serious question the state of civil liberties, freedom of assembly and the right to protest in modern day Britain.
What is Palestine Action?
According to their website, Palestine Action is:
“a direct-action movement committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime. Using disruptive tactics, Palestine Action targets corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex and seeks to make it impossible for these companies to profit from the oppression of Palestinians.”
Its main targets include Israeli weapons producers and companies such as Elbit Systems UK. It is acutely focused on direct action with the aim of shutting down the production of Israeli weapons.
Palestine Action’s campaigns have been controversial and disruptive, and it openly states that its tactics are focused on direct action, rather than civil disobedience.
Why is Palestine Action being proscribed?
The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper has stated that Palestine Action has committed a ‘long history of unacceptable criminal damage’ and that ‘since its inception in 2020…has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions…’ She hastened to stress however that ‘the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy. Should Parliament vote to proscribe, that right will be unaffected.’
In considering what legislation says regarding terrorism and proscription, both terms are defined under section 1, subsections (1) and (2) and section 3, subsections (4) and (5) of the Terrorism Act 2000:
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [racial], or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
And on proscription:
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it-
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
Palestine Action may have found itself in a difficult position. The right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is derogable i.e. can be limited in certain circumstances and is not absolute. Furthermore, the Home Secretary has stated that its actions ‘meet the threshold’ of the tests under the Terrorism Act 2000.
It now appears, despite this ‘long history of unacceptable criminal damage’, the tipping point to proscription is the recent spray-painting of two military planes at RAF Brize Norton. It therefore seems that direct action groups, who would previously have been dealt with through criminal prosecutions may now be subject to anti-terror law.
Is this a proportionate response? The impact of proscribing a group like Palestine Action is sending the message that direct action tactics are now to be considered as terrorism and not necessarily protest - and this will have wider reaching implications.
What are the implications of proscribing a group like Palestine Action?
Equating Palestine Action with terrorism puts them in the same category (at least legally) as groups such as ISIS, National Action and the Wagner Group. Membership, or even support for Palestine Action could potentially carry a sentence of up to 14 years in prison, per section 12 of the TA and the sentencing guidelines.
This could arguably criminalise non-violent political activity i.e. by potentially ‘catching’ individuals who support Palestine Action, but do not actively participate in their direct-action methods. The proscription may also serve as a deterrent for other groups who wish to engage in lawful right to protest altogether, despite what the Home Secretary has stated. We are potentially seeing a blurring of the lines between legal protest, civil disobedience, freedom of expression and association and, at the other extreme, terrorism. Human rights legislation is in place to protect civil rights; however, this decision could be seeing the slow erosion of these legal standards.
Our lawyers at Saunders law are experts in civil liberties and we are passionate about assisting members of the public to protect their rights. If you have been affected by any of the issues mentioned above, please contact us on 020 7632 4300 to discuss your concerns.
