Proscription was disproportionate – and has had a chilling effect
As my barristers argued, the proscription has had a chilling effect on thousands of people across the country. Examples include a former headmaster arrested for displaying a Private Eye cartoon, and protester Laura Murton being accused by police of potentially committing a terror offence by displaying a Palestine flag and a placard that said 'Free Gaza'. Even the UN human rights commissioner, Volker Türk, agrees the proscription is 'disproportionate and unnecessary'.
The impact on free speech is evident even as I write this piece. I'm given less latitude to counter the home secretary's claims than she is afforded to advance them. Her decision to proscribe gives her a higher degree of control of the narrative, as many papers will be reluctant, for legal reasons, to publish a piece that may make the readers sympathetic to Palestine Action's aims. So all I am allowed to say on that is contained within my first witness statement. But I must do at least this. It is important that readers understand our case.
As I explained to the court, Palestine Action 'take direct action against Israel's arms trade in Britain'. We 'put our bodies in the way of a military machine perpetrating genocide'. In my view the campaign has been effective, so I believe weapons firms and the Israeli embassy lobbied hard for ministers and police to crack down on Palestine Action.
However, proscribing a domestic direct action group has sparked outrage. So far, more than 700 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act for holding signs, while opposition to the ban is growing across the political spectrum. To save face, it seems to me the government has resorted to a smear campaign. Rather than solely litigating the case in the courts, they're also trying to litigate it in the media, where hard facts are swapped for soundbites.
Their newest claim refers to supposed evidence of 'disturbing' plans and ideas. Yvette Cooper failed to reference any such evidence in court ahead of the 'permission hearing' to challenge the ban, instead launching the claims on TV. These allegations are not supported by the security assessments disclosed by her own department, and don't match the facts.
The assessment to proscribe Palestine Action was made in March 2025, but it seems Cooper delayed proscription until the most politically convenient moment. If there were 'disturbing plans' and serious concerns of national security, why wait four months?
Even Keir Starmer weighed in, making reference to 'Jewish-owned' businesses. The intention seemed to be to imply that Palestine Action was antisemitic. In reality, it targeted dozens of companies associated with Israel's biggest weapons producer, regardless of the identities of the owners. This fact is known by the government, yet they continue to weaponise antisemitism.
I believe the idea behind the government's statements is to deliberately mislead the public and parliament. The group was banned due to 'serious property damage for a political cause', not because of racism or alleged violence against people. It is false to claim the organisation had violent intent against people. The home secretary's own security assessments say the direct action group didn't advocate violence or pose a threat to life.
Cooper's attempt to justify her decision by misleading the public shows only what a huge political misstep she has made. Her political career will be marked by the most draconian attack on our civil liberties in a generation.
Huda Ammori was co-founder of Palestine Action and is challenging its proscription in court
Photograph by Antonio Olmos
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Met urged to scrap Carnival facial recognition plan
Civil liberty and anti-racism groups have called on the Metropolitan Police to drop plans to use live facial recognition (LFR) technology at this year's Notting Hill Carnival. In a letter to Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, 11 organisations described LFR as "a mass surveillance tool that treats all Carnival-goers as potential suspects and has no place at one of London's biggest cultural celebrations". They said the decision to reintroduce the technology at Carnival was "deeply disappointing" and argued it could be "less accurate for women and people of colour". The Met Police says LFR is accurate and balanced across ethnicity and gender, and insists it will help keep people safe. The groups - which include Liberty, Big Brother Watch and the Runnymede Trust - highlighted an ongoing judicial review brought by Shaun Thompson, a black Londoner who says he was wrongly identified by the system and detained. The letter states: "There is no clear legal basis for your force's use of LFR. No law mentions facial recognition technology and Parliament has never considered or scrutinised its use. "Notting Hill Carnival is an event that specifically celebrates the British African Caribbean community, yet the [Metropolitan Police] is choosing to use a technology with a well-documented history of inaccurate outcomes and racial bias." The letter also raised concerns over a 2023 National Physical Laboratory study, which found the NeoFace system used by the Met was less accurate for women and people of colour depending on the algorithm that has been set. The study's authors found the system could show bias at lower thresholds, though at the higher settings the Met says it uses, performance was found to be equitable across ethnicity and gender. These thresholds are confidence levels the system uses to decide a match - lower ones flag more people but risk more mistakes and bias, while higher ones are stricter and more balanced. Campaigners said there was no legal obligation for the force to avoid the lower thresholds, and argued policing resources would be better spent on safety measures at the carnival. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Matt Ward, who is leading this year's policing operation at the carnival, said LFR had led to more than 1,000 arrests since the start of 2024 and that independent testing showed the system was "accurate and balanced with regard to ethnicity and gender" at the thresholds used by the Met. Notting Hill Carnival takes place next weekend and has previously attracted up to two million people. It has come under increased scrutiny after two people were murdered at last year's event. Facial recognition tech for Notting Hill Carnival 'Cancelling Carnival won't stop knife crime' 'City Hall should run Notting Hill Carnival' Mr Ward said the force had received the letter and would respond in due course. "Carnival's growing popularity and size creates unique challenges. Around 7,000 officers and staff will be deployed each day," he said. "Their priority is to keep people safe, including preventing serious violence, such as knife crime and violence against women and girls. "It is right that we make the best use of available technology to support officers to do their job more effectively." Mr Ward said the LFR cameras will be used on the approach to and from Carnival and not within the event boundaries. He said they will "help officers identify and intercept those who pose a public safety risk before they get to the crowded streets". BBC News has contacted the carnival's organisers for comment. Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to Related internet links Liberty Human Rights Metropolitan Police
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
British horseracing to go on strike in protest against rise in betting taxes
LONDON (AP) — British horseracing will stage an unprecedented one-day strike on Sept. 10 to protest a proposed rise in taxes on race betting. The four scheduled meetings that day — at Carlisle, Uttoxeter, Lingfield and Kempton — will not take place after agreements between the owners of the courses and the British Horseracing Authority, making it the first time the sport in Britain has voluntarily refused to race in modern history. The BHA set up the 'Axe the Racing Tax' campaign in response to proposals to replace the existing three-tax structure of online gambling duties with a single tax, with fears the current 15% duty on racing could be increased to the 21% levied on games of chance. Brant Dunshea, chief executive at the British Horseracing Authority, said the strike intends to 'highlight to (the) government the serious consequences of the treasury's tax proposals which threaten the very future of our sport.' 'British racing is already in a precarious financial position and research has shown that a tax rise on racing could be catastrophic for the sport and the thousands of jobs that rely on it in towns and communities across the country," Dunshea said. 'This is the first time that British racing has chosen not to race due to government proposals. We haven't taken this decision lightly but in doing so we are urging the government to rethink this tax proposal to protect the future of our sport which is a cherished part of Britain's heritage and culture." The British government said it was bringing the 'treatment of online betting in line with other forms of online gambling to cut down bureaucracy.' 'It is not about increasing or decreasing rates,' the government said, "and we welcome views from all stakeholders including businesses, trade bodies, the third sector and individuals.' ___ AP sports:
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
British horseracing to go on strike in protest against rise in betting taxes
LONDON (AP) — British horseracing will stage an unprecedented one-day strike on Sept. 10 to protest a proposed rise in taxes on race betting. The four scheduled meetings that day — at Carlisle, Uttoxeter, Lingfield and Kempton — will not take place after agreements between the owners of the courses and the British Horseracing Authority, making it the first time the sport in Britain has voluntarily refused to race in modern history. The BHA set up the 'Axe the Racing Tax' campaign in response to proposals to replace the existing three-tax structure of online gambling duties with a single tax, with fears the current 15% duty on racing could be increased to the 21% levied on games of chance. Brant Dunshea, chief executive at the British Horseracing Authority, said the strike intends to 'highlight to (the) government the serious consequences of the treasury's tax proposals which threaten the very future of our sport.' 'British racing is already in a precarious financial position and research has shown that a tax rise on racing could be catastrophic for the sport and the thousands of jobs that rely on it in towns and communities across the country,' Dunshea said. 'This is the first time that British racing has chosen not to race due to government proposals. We haven't taken this decision lightly but in doing so we are urging the government to rethink this tax proposal to protect the future of our sport which is a cherished part of Britain's heritage and culture.' The British government said it was bringing the 'treatment of online betting in line with other forms of online gambling to cut down bureaucracy.' 'It is not about increasing or decreasing rates,' the government said, 'and we welcome views from all stakeholders including businesses, trade bodies, the third sector and individuals.' ___ AP sports:
