Ruling against Palestine Action ban is embarrassing defeat for the government | Palestine Action
The list of critics of the Palestine Action ban and its consequences was diverse, counting at least a Trump administration official, a former director of public prosecutions, a former director of security services, Interior Ministry officials, politicians of various stripes and UN experts, as well as numerous NGOs.
Three senior judges can now be added to the list as they say the ban is “disproportionate” and affects freedom of expression and protest, where the activities of a direct action group could be targeted under existing criminal law.
The ban has become highly controversial since the point in June last year when then home secretary Yvette Cooper first announced her intention to ban Palestine Action.
While “serious property damage” is the criterion for a ban under the Terrorism Act 2000, the law has previously only been used for groups that intend to commit personal violence, such as the Islamic State and Boko Haram.
It has therefore been debated by many for use against the Palestine Movement, which has targeted Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems’ facilities in the UK, and other groups it says are complicit in genocide against Palestinians.
As well as being based on the “serious material damage provision” in the Terrorism Act, the ban also noted that the UK was one of the few countries where it was an offense to recklessly support a proscribed organisation.
No direct action group had ever been banned before; This fueled the perception that suppressing pro-Palestinian voices was more important to ministers than stopping the slaughter of tens of thousands of people trapped in Gaza, despite the government’s denials.
Advocacy organizations We Believe in Israel and the Campaign Against Antisemitism had pressured the government to ban Palestine Action, and the Guardian had previously revealed that it had held meetings under the Conservative government with Elbit representatives and Israeli embassy officials apparently interested in pressuring the group.
Skepticism grew as the parliamentary vote on the ban approached, with the Home Office informing the Times that it was investigating whether the Palestine Movement was funded by Iran; The Home Office later distanced itself from the claim, and independent terrorism legislation reviewer Jonathan Hall KC, who supported the ban, responded: He told Channel 4’s Dispatches It was an unfounded “nudge-nudge, wink-wink” insinuation.
There were also concerns that two neo-Nazi groups, the Maniacs Murder Order and the Russian Imperial Movement, were also included in the same banning order; This meant that MPs were forced to vote to ban all or none of them.
If the government was hoping that the controversy would calm down after the ban came into force, it would be disappointed. There was not only a legal challenge (due to the rejection of a resolution to lift the ban) but also a campaign of civil disobedience. Scenes of retirees, including clergy and war veterans, being taken away by the police further increased criticism; The Metropolitan Police Federation said the extra demands on police officers as a result of repeated demonstrations in which hundreds of people were arrested were “unsustainable”.
The police interventions were both chilling and absurd. Laura Murton was threatened with arrest by armed police for supporting Palestine Action by carrying a banner reading “Free Gaza” and a Palestinian flag. Retired teacher Marianne Sorrell was detained by police for approximately 27 hours after being arrested for carrying a banner reading “I am against genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Meanwhile, police officers broke into his house and searched.
Jon Farley was arrested for carrying a banner that reproduced a graphic from Private Eye magazine: “Unacceptable Palestinian Action: spraying military aircraft with drugs. Acceptable Palestinian Action: shooting Palestinians queuing for food.”
Downing Street described the Palestine Movement as a “violent organisation, which uses violence, causes serious injury, inflicts serious criminal damage” and Cooper made similar statements but appeared to be contradicted by documents released at the judicial review.
Joint Terrorism Analysis Center (Jtac), government body based in MI5He prepared a secret report that was disclosed in the high court on March 7 last year. While Jtac recommended banning Palestine Action, it said the group “primarily uses direct action tactics,” which often results in minor property damage. “Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, squatting and lockdowns,” he said.
Whitehall officials also backed the ban, but acknowledged banning the group would be “relatively new”; because “there was no known precedent of an organization being banned primarily on the grounds that it was engaged in terrorism because of its use or threat of action that would cause serious damage to property”.
Ultimately, the judges ruled that “a very small number of activities of the Palestine Movement amount to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 Act.”
But in trying to classify it that way, the government not only suffered a humiliating defeat, but also transformed Palestine Action from a little-known protest group into one that was on the front pages of newspapers.
