‘Immensely heartened’: Sally Rooney hails Palestine Action high court ruling as victory for UK civil liberties | Palestine Action
Sally Rooney has welcomed the high court’s decision that it was unlawful to ban Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws as a victory for civil liberties in Britain.
Ministers suffered a humiliating legal defeat a week ago when three senior judges ruled that banning a direct action group targeting organizations it deemed complicit in Israel’s arming was disproportionate and unlawful.
The Irish writer gave two witness statements in support of Huda Ammori’s case, which were cited by the Palestine Action co-founder’s lawyers as evidence of the ban’s negative impact on freedom of expression.
Following the decision, the author of Normal People and Conversations with Friends said that he planned to use the income from his work to support Palestine Action. In September, he canceled a trip to England to receive the award for fear of arrest.
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Rooney said: “I am, of course, extremely pleased and encouraged that the high court found the ban on Palestine Action to be unlawful. This is a victory not only for the Palestine solidarity movement, but also for civil liberties in Britain.”
“The banning of a political protest group under the Terrorism Act represents a truly extreme attack on ordinary rights and freedoms, and the high court has recognized this.”
“Very serious interference” with the rights to freedom of expression and assembly was one of two grounds that enabled Ammori’s claim to succeed. Rooney stated that the legal question is “not whether Palestine Action is justified in carrying out its activities, but whether even having this discussion is a criminal offense” and said that the issue forms the basis of the ban.
He added: “It is important to bear in mind that the main purpose of the Terrorism Act is not to criminalize acts of violence that are already illegal, but rather to criminalize acts of speech, association, financial dealings etc. that are legal.
“These measures, which constitute a serious violation of freedom of expression and other rights, were intended to be used against armed groups that pose a serious threat to the public. The discussions held in the parliament when the Anti-Terrorism Law was enacted were clear evidence of this intention.
“The use of such measures against a protest group that poses no threat to the public is completely unprecedented and, we now know, illegal,” he added.
In ruling in favor of Ammori, the judges rejected the idea that Palestine Action was non-violent or engaged in civil disobedience, describing it as an organization that “promotes its political purpose through crime and incitement to crime.”
Responding to the decision, Home Affairs Minister Shabana Mahmood touched on these findings, expressing her disappointment with the outcome. “The ban on Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process approved by parliament,” he said.
“As a former Chancellor, I have the deepest respect for our judiciary. But home secretaries must retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I plan to challenge this decision in the court of appeal.”
Supreme Court in question Palestine Action’s claim that it is non-violent “is based on the premise that it does not involve the use of violence, regardless of the extent of damage to property. This is a view that many people will find difficult to understand and, for our part, we cannot accept.”
Rooney disagreed. “To me, and I think to many other people, the word ‘violence’ means harming a living being,” he said. “Inanimate objects cannot be harmed. Moreover, damaging one’s own property, for example destroying old belongings, is clearly not violence. Does the same action turn into violence if the property belongs to someone else? This is a philosophical question as well as a legal one.
“Of course, Palestine Action uses deliberate property damage in the service of a campaign against genocide and apartheid. This is absolutely consistent with the tradition of civil disobedience, from the suffragettes to the environmental movement. I must confess that I was surprised by the justices’ assertion that civil disobedience should be ‘characterized by restraint.’ Clearly we are reading very different history books.”
“So yes, I disagree with some parts of the decision, but unlike the home secretary, I agree with the consequences of the decision.”
In his second witness statement in the case, Rooney said it was “almost certain” he would no longer be able to publish new work in the UK as long as the Palestine Action ban remained in place, and that his existing titles might have to be withdrawn from sale, describing such a scenario as “a truly extreme incursion by the state into the space of artistic expression”.
Although the judges said they recommended that the banning order be set aside, Palestine Action remains banned for now as the court said it would await arguments from the Home Office as to why it should remain in place pending appeal.
“If an order is found to be unlawful or unconstitutional, it seems to me that the order should be rescinded immediately,” Rooney said. “However, I am now confident that the order will soon be revoked in its entirety and, as a result, my work will continue to be published in the UK. I will look forward to visiting Britain again when that time comes.”
