Should the proscription of Palestine Action be a cause for concern?

By Lily Hatch

Over forty protestors have already been arrested on suspicion for showing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation further calling into effect the legitimacy and practicality of the ban. Image: PA Media

In the early hours of the morning on Friday 20th June, Pro-Palestinian group ‘Palestine Action’ broke into RAF base Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, committing criminal acts of vandalism. The group, famous for direct action protests, used red paint to deface military aircraft in the high-profile security breach, resulting in the arrest of six individuals, the majority of whom, were arrested on terror-charges. Whilst counter-terrorism police launch an investigation into the incident, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper made quick work of taking action on the government's behalf, announcing her direction to proscribe the group less than twenty-four hours after the break in took place. This move would make it illegal to become a member of the organisation, labelling it as ‘terrorist’ group, thus any individual who violates the proscription of Palestine Action could be met with a charge of up to 14 years in prison. Unsurprisingly, the decision has led to widespread controversy, with many new questions arising in tandem, largely concerning the legitimacy of the ban and the dangers it may pose to other pro-Palestinian groups. 

In her statement to the public on the 23rd of June, Cooper made it abundantly clear that she had made her decision to proscribe Palestine Action on the basis that their “activities meet the threshold set out in the statutory tests established under the Terrorism Act 2000”, repeatedly reinforcing their new label as a terrorist organisation. It is important to note that Cooper has not made this decision based singularly off the Brize Norton incident, but also with consideration for the numerous other protests that Palestine Action have conducted since their inception in 2020. Emphasising that the organisation has a “long history” of criminal damage, that qualifies them as a terrorist organisation. For instance, her statement included mention of the break into Thales Defence Factory in Glasgow 2022, using pyrotechnic devices and smoke bombs that caused damage to the property worth over one million pounds. Despite this, however, many have taken issue with the classification of terrorism, with former SNP leader Hamza Yousaf going as far to say the ban is a “shameful abuse of anti-terror legislation”. Even within the government itself, there are high levels of dissent, with a senior member of the home office anonymously coming forward to outline internal concerns from within Westminster. They brought to light the opinion shared among many in the department who hold “concern about treating non-violent pressure groups the same as actual terrorist organisations like Isis” as well as fears that the government may “prosecute as terrorists, everyone who expresses support for Palestine Action’s work”. Whilst Cooper made it clear that the ban on Palestine Action will not affect other protest groups who campaign on issues surrounding Palestine or the Middle East, many are concerned that the ban sets a precedent to proscribe similar organisations down the line. 

Alternatively, some have argued that the government may be using the proscription of Palestine Action as a tactic to posture appeal to Reform voters by taking a strong stance on pro-Palestinian protests.

Palestine Action, as self-proclaimed on their website, is a “direct action movement”, admitting to using “disruptive tactics”, however, their methods are also non-violent. In turn, it has become a topic of debate as to why a non-violent group could be proscribed at all, or in extremis, even labelled as terrorist, with other direct-action organisations becoming fearful for their continued existence. A spokesperson for Palestine Action, Saeed Taji Farouky, said it was “ludicrous” to even suggest a “civil society” group could possibly end up on the same register as organisations like Isis, going on to illustrate his concerns as to how this will impact the security of other organisations, and in turn the democracy of the UK as a whole. 

As such, it is reasonable to question why Palestine Action is perhaps being treated differently to other organisations that enlist similar methods. Just Stop Oil, for instance, has committed numerous acts of vandalism, most famously throwing soup at Vincent Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, yet does not face proscription, so why is it that Palestine Action does? Some have drawn the conclusion that it is due to the nature of their cause, others deeming it to be down to the locations in which they choose to stage their protests, in particular, military and defence installations. Many have disagreed over whether the armed forces are valid targets for protest, or whether national security is more important. Starmer, himself, responded to the incident on twitter, saying “our armed forces [...] put their lives on the line for us every day. It is our responsibility to support those who defend us" as such demonstrating his position that violations against the armed forces will in no way be tolerated. 

Is Labour justified in labelling a group of serial vandals terrorist, or are they overreacting considering Palestine Action has never once hurt a human being?

Alternatively, some have argued that the government may be using the proscription of Palestine Action as a tactic to posture appeal to Reform voters by taking a strong stance on pro-Palestinian protests. A significant portion of those who vote reform, or generally to the right, do not support campaigns on-behalf of Palestine, thus providing a political incentive for the government to respond in a manner that appears harshly to supporters of Palestine Action in order to win over a portion of Reform’s votes, as the party appears to be becoming a larger threat looking onwards to the next general election. This action in itself, however, has sparked questions over the legitimacy of the government’s decision to ban Palestine Action, only building upon accusations of corruption and abuses of power. 

It is not yet clear just how this decision will affect other British pressure groups of a similar nature, nor the scale of response this controversial ruling will be. However, it is undeniable that the government will continue to face scrutiny for their decision, perhaps perilously from their reliable left-leaning voters, a large portion of whom will be displeased with the government’s ‘drastic’ reaction. On the other hand, however, they may also receive praise for the stern response they have taken against a group who have clearly violated the law, perhaps earning respect from right-wing voters. The situation is however open to interpretation, dependent on a person’s political views or

beliefs. Is Labour justified in labelling a group of serial vandals terrorist, or are they overreacting considering Palestine Action has never once hurt a human being?

Image: PA Media