UN compares UK’s Palestine Action ban with human rights restrictions in Russia
Britain’s decision to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organization has been likened to authoritarian crackdowns in Russia by a UN expert.
Professor Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, said the UK government’s ban on the direct action protest group was an “unnecessary and disproportionate restriction” on “fundamental human rights”.
In evidence submitted to the High Court, he warned that the move would “set a precedent” for further crackdowns on other protest movements, such as climate activists in the UK.
Palestine Movement co-founder Huda Ammori took the government to court over Yvette Cooper’s decision to ban the group as a terrorist organization when she was home secretary in June.
Alarmed by this move, Prof Saul, an independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to monitor the violations, intervened in the case.
He told the court that Britain’s terrorism ban was “incompatible with similar liberal democracies, including in Europe”. “The misuse of laws to proscribe organizations as terrorists when they are not actually so has occurred more commonly in States that are authoritarian and lack legal and political cultures of respect for human rights, legality, due process and independent judicial guarantees,” he wrote in his witness statement.
He continued: “These include egregious abuses, such as Russia’s listing of the global LGBTQI movement as an ‘extremist’ organization. Organizations should never be listed as terrorists because they engage in protected speech or legitimate activities in defense of human rights.”
He told the court the ban was disproportionate to Palestine Action’s activities, saying the ban “cannot be justified on the basis of the actions of a small minority of people participating in it”. Prof Saul added that the ban would have a “widespread chilling effect” on people’s legitimate rights to protest.
“This is not a group that advocates violence,” Raza Husain KC, on behalf of Ms Ammori, told the Supreme Court on Wednesday, saying any serious instance of violence against property or person “is not the norm, it is rare”.
The ban has since led to thousands of people being arrested under terrorism laws for holding banners saying they oppose genocide and support Palestine Action.
The group was banned after an incident in June when activists broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and sprayed two military aircraft with red paint. In her rationale for banning Palestine Action, Ms Cooper cited the group’s 2022 protest at a weapons equipment factory in Glasgow and its targeting of Israeli defense technology company Elbit Systems UK in Bristol.
Woolwich Crown Court heard on Monday that an activist allegedly hit a police sergeant with a sledgehammer during an attack on Elbit in Bristol in August last year.
Government witness statements presented in the Supreme Court case show Ms Cooper hesitated in her decision to ban Palestine Action, pausing the first step to obtain more information.
Jonathan Sinclair, national security director at the Home Office’s Internal Security Group, said Ms Cooper had decided to ban Palestine Action on May 14 this year, but paused that decision two days later after requesting more information.
A month later, on June 20, Ms Cooper confirmed she would once again agree to ban the group.
Sir James Eadie KC, on behalf of the government, said the debate on how to define a terrorist organization was up to parliament to decide.
The lawyer told the court: “In our democratic society these issues are matters for parliament to decide, and parliament’s decision is expressed in existing legislation.”
In written comments, Sir James said the aim of the ban was to “suppress terrorist organizations and ensure that members of the public face criminal liability for participating in or supporting such organisations”.
He continued: “This serves to ensure that banned organizations are deprived of both the oxygen of publicity and support, both verbal and financial.”
The case before Dame Victoria Sharp, Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn is expected to conclude on 2 December, with a written decision expected at a later date.
