Met Police bans pro-Palestinian demonstration in front of Parliament
June 23 (UPI) -- Britain's Met police banned a pro-Palestinian protest in front of the Houses of Parliament in central London scheduled to take place on Monday to "prevent serious public order," property damage and disruption to elected representatives.
Met Commissioner Mark Rowley said in a statement Sunday that while he could not stop the demonstration going ahead, he was using powers under public order legislation to impose an exclusion zone preventing protestors from assembling in a roughly 0.5 square mile area around the Palace of Westminster and restrict the duration to between noon and 3 p.m. local time.
The We Are All Palestine protest was being organized by Palestine Action but backed by around 35 other groups, including the Stop the War Coalition, Cage and Muslim Engagement and Development.
Calling Palestine Action "an extremist criminal group" with members awaiting trial on serious charges, Rowley said he was frustrated that he lacked legal authority to ban the protest outright.
"The right to protest is essential and we will always defend it, but actions in support of such a group go beyond what most would see as legitimate protest," he said.
Rowley added that criminal charges faced by Palestine Action members, including allegedly attacking a police officer with a sledgehammer and causing millions of dollars of damage, represented extremism of a type that the vast majority of the public found abhorrent.
Palestinian Action responded by moving the protest, telling supporters in a post on X early Monday that it would now go ahead in Trafalgar Square, which is just outside the northern edge of the exclusion zone.
"The Metropolitan police are trying to deter support from Palestine Action by banning the protest from taking place at the Houses of Parliament. Don't let them win! Make sure everyone is aware of the location change to Trafalgar Square, London. Mobilize from 12 p.m."
The move came as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper updated lawmakers on plans to proscribe Palestinian Action as a terrorist organization after members of the group claimed responsibility for damaging military aircraft Friday after breaking into an RAF base northwest of London.
They also allegedly damaged the offices of an insurance company, which the group claimed provided services to Elbit Systems, an Israel-based military technology company and defense contractor.
Activist Saeed Taji Farouky called the move to proscribe the group a ludicrous move that "rips apart the very basic concepts of British democracy and the rule of law."
"It's something everyone should be terrified about," he told the BBC.
Cooper said in a written statement to the House that she expected to bring a draft order amending the country's anti-terror legislation before Parliament next week. Proscribing Palestine Action would make membership or promotion of the group punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Palestinian Action, escalated from targeting arms producers to vandalizing the two Airbus refuelling tanker aircraft because Britain was, it claimed, deploying aircraft to its Akrotiri airbase on Cyprus from where it can "collect intelligence, refuel fighter jets and transport weapons to commit genocide in Gaza."
The attack at RAF Brize Norton, the British military's main hub for strategic air transport and refuelling, including flights to RAF Akrotiri, came the same day a British man appeared in a closed court in Cyprus on charges of planning an "imminent terrorist attack" on the island and espionage.
The suspect was arrested by Greek anti-terror officers on a tip-off from a foreign intelligence service claiming he'd had the RAF Akrotiri base under surveillance since April and had links with the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
He faces charges of terrorism, espionage, conspiracy to commit a felony and other related offences.
RAF Akrotiri is the U.K. military's largest base for the Middle East region and a key waypoint en route to its giant Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands, 3,800 miles to the southeast in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
6 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court lets Trump administration resume deportations to third countries without notice
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a lower court order that prevented the Trump administration from deporting migrants to countries that are not their places of origin without first giving them the chance to raise fears of torture, persecution or death. The order from the high court is a victory for the Trump administration, which has faced recent setbacks from the justices in its efforts to swiftly deport migrants as part of its crackdown on immigration. The court said in a pair of earlier decisions arising from other emergency appeals that migrants facing deportation under a wartime law must receive notice and an opportunity to challenge their removals in court. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court's decision Monday regarding third country removals. The Supreme Court's latest order came in a court fight over the Trump administration's efforts to swiftly deport some migrants to third countries, or countries other than the ones designated on an order of removal. As part of Mr. Trump's immigration agenda and plans for mass deportations, his administration has approached nations like Costa Rica, Panama and Rwanda about accepting migrants who are not their citizens. The administration has already entered into an arrangement with the government of El Salvador to detain Venezuelan migrants who it claims are gang members, though a "60 Minutes" investigation found most have no apparent criminal records. The migrants have been confined at the notorious Salvadoran prison known as CECOT. Four migrants from Latin America filed a lawsuit in March on behalf of a nationwide class of all people potentially subject to third-country removals and argued they are entitled to notice and an opportunity to contest their removals on the grounds they fear persecution, torture and death. In the weeks after the suit was filed, administration officials were engaged in a simmering showdown with a Boston-based federal judge, who in April found that the government had violated migrants' due process rights and blocked immigration authorities from quickly removing them to third countries unless certain steps are first taken. The judge, Brian Murphy, said the government first had to give the affected migrants written notice of the third country to which they may be deported and a "meaningful opportunity" to raise fears of torture, persecution or death in that country. Third-country deportations challenged in court Since Murphy issued his nationwide injunction in April, immigration lawyers have notified him that a group of migrants from Laos, Vietnam and the Philippines were being prepared to be deported to Libya and Saudi Arabia, though the deportation flights do not appear to have happened. Murphy then concluded last month that the Trump administration violated his order when it attempted to swiftly deport a group of men with criminal histories to war-torn South Sudan with less than 24 hours notice and no chance for them to raise fear-based claims. Murphy halted the deportations to South Sudan, and the men are being held at a U.S. naval base in nearby Djibouti, a small country on the Horn of Africa. The judge said federal immigration authorities must give six of the deportees "reasonable fear" interviews to determine whether they are at risk of persecution or torture. Murphy left it up to the Department of Homeland Security to either conduct the interviews within the U.S. or abroad, but said the department had to retain "custody and control" over the men. A U.S. immigration official revealed in a June 4 filing that the migrants are being held in a conference room in a converted shipping container on the naval base and are guarded by 11 ICE officers. The official, Mellissa Harper, described in an affidavit the conditions facing the migrants and the immigration authorities, who she said have felt ill since arriving in Djibouti, which uses burn pits to dispose of trash and human waste. The ICE officers were unable to take anti-malaria medication for up to 72 hours before arriving in Djibouti and have experienced coughing, difficulty breathing, fever and achy joint, Harper said. They were also warned by defense officials that they were in "imminent danger" of rocket attacks from terrorist groups in Yemen, and the ICE officers do not have body armor or other gear to put on in case of an attack, she said. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court last month to pause Murphy's injunction, which Solicitor General D. John Sauer said was thwarting the administration's attempts to deport what it describes as the "worst of the worst illegal aliens." "Those judicially created procedures are currently wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process," he wrote in a filing. "In addition to usurping the executive's authority over immigration policy, the injunction disrupts sensitive diplomatic, foreign-policy, and national-security efforts." He said Murphy's injunction created a "diplomatic and logistical morass." But lawyers for the migrants at risk of deportation to third countries said the criteria laid out in the lower court's injunction are mandated by federal law and regulations, U.S. treaty obligations and the Constitution. The order, they said, "simply requires defendants to comply with the law when carrying them out." The immigration lawyers said over the past weeks, the Trump administration "repeatedly sought to remove people as a punitive measure, to some of the most dangerous places on the planet, and with only hours' notice." Mr. Trump has overseen a sweeping immigration crackdown since he returned to the White House for a second term. The president's administration has since moved to end a Temporary Protected Status program that shielded 350,000 Venezuelan migrants from the threat of deportation and to revoke the legal status of roughly 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The Supreme Court has allowed him to move forward with terminating both of those programs while legal proceedings continue. Mr. Trump also has sought to use the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans who his administration claims are members of the gang Tren de Aragua, though several courts have ruled that the president cannot use the law to detain or remove certain migrants.
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court, ruling for Trump, says criminal aliens may be deported to South Sudan
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday the Trump administration may deport criminal aliens to South Sudan or Libya even if those countries are deemed too dangerous for visitors. By a 6-3 vote, the conservative majority set aside the rulings of a Boston-based judge who said the detained men deserved a 'meaningful opportunity' to object to being sent to a strange country where they may be tortured or abused. The court issued an unsigned order with no explanation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a 19-page dissent and was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach,' she said. 'I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court's equitable discretion.' Last month, the government put eight criminal aliens on a military plane bound for South Sudan. 'All of these aliens had committed heinous crimes in the United States, including murder, arson, armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault of a mentally handicapped woman, child rape, and more,' Trump's Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer told the court. They also had a 'final order of removal' from an immigration judge. But U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston said the flight may have defied an earlier order because the men were not given a reasonable chance to object. He said the Convention Against Torture gives people protection against being sent to a country where they may be tortured or killed. He noted the U.S. State Department had warned Americans: 'Do not travel to South Sudan due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.' Sauer said this case was different from others involving deportations because it dealt with the 'worst of the worst' among immigants in the country without authorization. He said these immigrants were given due process of law because they were convicted of crimes and were given a 'final order of removal. However, their native country was unwilling to take them. 'Many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove,' he told the court. 'As a result, criminal aliens are often allowed to stay in the United States for years on end, victimizing law-abiding Americans in the meantime.' Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the plane landed at a military base in Djibouti. In April, Murphy said 'this presents a simple question: before the United States forcibly sends someone to a country other than their country of origin, must that person be told where they are going and be given a chance to tell the United States that they might be killed if sent there?' He said the plaintiffs were 'seeking a limited and measured remedy ... the minimum that comports with due process.'
Hamilton Spectator
12 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Florida asks Supreme Court to reinstate immigration law as lower courts weigh constitutionality
The Florida Attorney General asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to allow the state to enforce a new immigration law that makes it a misdemeanor for people living in the U.S. illegally to enter the state. The petition is the latest in a months-long battle between Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier and district U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams. Last week Williams held Uthmeier in contempt for instructing officers to continue enforcing the new law despite the judge's orders to stop enforcement until the courts decide whether the law is constitutional. The attorney general's appeal to the Supreme Court said the state has a right to use the law to protect itself from the harm of illegal immigration. The legislation tracks federal law and the injunction shouldn't cover every officer in the state 'who never had their day in court,' the appeal argued. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the legislation into law in February as part of President Donald Trump's push to crack down on illegal immigration, though many of Trump's immigration enforcement efforts are mired in battles with federal judges. Immigrants rights groups filed lawsuits on behalf of two unnamed, Florida-based immigrants living in the U.S. illegally shortly after the bill was signed into law. The lawsuit said that the new legislation violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by encroaching on federal duties. Williams issued a temporary restraining order and injunction that barred the enforcement of the new law statewide in April. The attorney general's office then unsuccessfully petitioned the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to override that decision. After Williams issued her original order, Uthmeier sent a memo to state and local law enforcement officers telling them to refrain from enforcing the law, even though he disagreed with the injunction. But five days later, he sent a memo saying the judge was legally wrong and that he couldn't prevent police officers and deputies from enforcing the law. 'Again, he may well be right that the district court's order is impermissibly broad,' the appellate judges said of Uthmeier. 'But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it.' ___ Riddle reported from Montgomery, Alabama. Riddle is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
