
Is banning Palestine Action likely to achieve anything?
As things stand, next Tuesday the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, will proscribe the Palestine Action organisation (PA), its members and its supporters, under terror laws. The ban comes after a series of attacks on defence industry establishments and military bases, as well as large demonstrations.
It's a move that is controversial and has itself provoked further protest. With the prosecution of Liam Og O hAnnaidh, a member of the Irish hip-hop group Kneecap, on terrorism charges, the meaning of 'terrorism' does seem to be getting stretched...
What is Palestine Action?
In the organisation's words: 'Palestine Action is a direct action movement committed to ending global participation in Israel's genocidal and apartheid regime. Using disruptive tactics, Palestine Action targets corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex and seeks to make it impossible for these companies to profit from the oppression of Palestinians.'
What's the problem?
They recently broke into RAF Brize Norton – with surprising ease – and set about vandalising, indeed sabotaging, air force planes, spraying red paint into the engine bays. No one was hurt, but it was the fourth such incident involving the group. Their activities, arguably, go beyond the usual definition of peaceful protest, and obviously they themselves advocate 'direct action'.
It aids a potential enemy, for sure, because it hinders the UK's ability to defend itself, but it doesn't seem to fit the usual template of terrorism, which involves intentional injury to civilians (though the law includes damage to property alone as terrorism).
PA's proscription places them in the same uncomfortable company as the IRA, al-Qaeda, Isis, the military arm of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Wagner Group, and the fascist National Action (but not, curiously, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps).
On the other hand, the law as it stands is very broad, and counts the 'glorification' of terror acts as being in support of terrorism and therefore unlawful – hence the number of people arrested at protest rallies. The definition even includes wordless images, so destroying planes might well fall within its scope. Maybe it's not so strange, then, to see PA banned.
So why are they being banned?
There are two possible further explanations. First, that there are things about Palestine Action known to the Security Service and the Home Office that would justify such a move, but are not, or can't be placed, in the public domain. Briefings, for example, by Home Office personnel to the effect that Palestine Action has been funded by Iran – a suggestion that is firmly denied by PA – indicate that there might be other issues. Or it could just be a smear.
The second is that it comes down to raw politics. The government doesn't want to look weak or biased in the way that it regulates such activities – the 'two tier justice' jibe. Also, at some point in the future, some PA direct action exercise could go wrong, cause casualties (to PA, military personnel, police or the public), and/or represent a more serious threat to national security. Cooper doesn't want to have to look as though she failed to take action against PA in time (and be forced to resign).
What else might be done?
There are numerous laws covering trespass, criminal damage and the like (some would add treason), and indeed, many very wide ones concerning terrorism that don't necessitate banning PA. These can be applied to anyone, in a proscribed organisation or not. The home secretary plainly doesn't deem them sufficient, but some other course, short of using terror legislation, could be pursued. Soon, all PA members or 'supporters' will be subject to the threat of imprisonment for up to 14 years.
What will happen?
Defiant, passionate, even fanatical by nature, PA people may well continue to organise demonstrations, break into arms factories, and take direct action, and will relish getting arrested, jailed – and becoming martyrs. Some MPs may join them, which will complicate matters.
It's also difficult for the security services to track terrorist organisations' membership lists and supporters, and to prove an offence. In other words, individuals and small informal groups of people supporting the Palestinian cause, as they see it, could carry on regardless and undeterred, under the Palestine Action banner or not, and some will no doubt welcome getting caught red-handed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump state visit shows the King has won the battle for Canada
The fest, as Donald Trump likes to call it, is coming. The King will host the US president in September for a full state visit after plans were put on fast forward by the Government. The upgraded visit, originally proposed as a semi-private trip to see the King in Scotland, will give team Trump the 'full bells and whistles' treatment and be based at Windsor Castle for the finest soft power the UK can throw at them. It is said to have caused tension between the palace and Government, placing the King in the unenviable position of formally hosting a head of state who has threatened to annex one of his own realms. After reports of the Prime Minister going 'against the wishes of the King', a Downing Street spokesman denied that Sir Keir Starmer had 'overruled' him when negotiating with the White House. Palace sources dismissed the idea that there is tension between the King and Sir Keir, emphasising that the monarch acts on the advice of the Government. 'His Majesty has known president Trump for many years and looks forward to hosting him and the first lady later this year,' a palace aide said. The message? The red carpet will be rolled out as usual. It is no secret though that the US state visit has proven one of the thorniest issues for the King on this year's diplomatic stage. Mr Trump has repeatedly threatened to annex Canada, insisting relentlessly that it should be America's '51st state'. The UK nevertheless invited him to be honoured. In turn, Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, said his countrymen ' weren't impressed ' by the state visit invitation. British diplomats noted that Mr Carney risked breaching the convention that realms tend not to publicly criticise one another. However, the King stepped up. As Canadian sovereign, he was dragged willingly into Canada's plans to show its own power. The King's involvement saw him fly to Ottawa in May for less than 24 hours on Canadian soil to deliver a speech at its parliament, reminding the world it is 'strong and free'. It was rightly interpreted as a public rebuke of Mr Trump's ambitions. One senior palace source said it was intended as 'thought-provoking, not provocative'. The King was, they said, 'leveraging on the long relationships he has built over the years' and using his role 'to the benefit of all the realms and commonwealth nations at a time of great international challenge'. Then, the idea of hosting Mr Trump in September seemed a challenge. However, the storyline has moved on. Some would argue, in fact, that the firming up of plans for the US state visit is a sign that the King has quietly won the battle for Canada. Everyone is aware of the 'diplomatic tightrope' the King has been walking, said one source, but he has done so with 'great skill'. 'I don't think anyone is now in doubt about the King's support and affection for Canada,' they said. When he is photographed shaking hands with Mr Trump, it is believed there will be no hurt feelings from Canadians who have already heard about the King's allegiance in person. Last week, Mr Carney said he no longer believes Mr Trump is interested in a '51st state' plan. Asked by CNN whether the US president is still threatening to annex Canada, he said: 'No, he is not.' 'He admires Canada,' he added. 'I think it's fair to say maybe for a period of time [he] coveted Canada.' The UK Government, which has prioritised trade deals and defence rather than siding with Canada in any war of words, has stuck to the basic party line that Canada is an 'independent, sovereign nation'. It is a matter of some satisfaction in British diplomatic circles that Mr Trump's rhetoric has dialled down drastically. 'We haven't heard much about Canada, have we?' one source asked of the past few weeks. The King's transatlantic show of force, it seems, has worked. Mr Trump has got his way when it comes to the details of the state visit. His team made it clear that the original suggestion of a low-key trip to see the King was not the order of the day. 'The president loves the pomp and ceremony,' said one source familiar with the negotiations. 'He doesn't want a private photograph with the Royal family – he wants a public one.' Mr Trump has described it as a 'fest', denoting the high level of flattery and fun he expects. The manu regia – the formal paperwork cementing the invitation – was signed by the King last week and hand delivered to the White House by representatives from the British Embassy in Washington. The King hopes to return to Canada at some point soon. Before then, he will raise a toast to the US at a state banquet in September with Mr Trump by his side. If the King's inevitable praise for America and Americans can be heard without guests' minds leaping immediately to Canada, the palace can consider it a job well done. It is a strategy not without risk, but high stakes can produce high rewards. It could – and should – be the moment that the idea of America invading its nearest neighbour is finally put to rest.


Sky News
30 minutes ago
- Sky News
Harry Dunn's family say enquiry into Foreign Office's treatment of them will start within three weeks
The family of Harry Dunn have said the government is about to start an enquiry into how the Foreign Office treated them after the 19-year-old was killed. Harry, who was riding a motorbike, died after a head-on collision in 2019 with a car driven by Anne Sacoolas, who was exiting the American intelligence base RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire. Sacoolas left the UK 19 days after the incident, as the US government had asserted diplomatic immunity on her behalf, claiming she was the wife of a diplomat. She was later revealed to be a US spy. The Dunn family began a long fight for justice, which eventually saw the former spy receive a suspended sentence after she pleaded guilty to causing Harry's death by dangerous driving. She was sentenced in an "unprecedented" case at the Old Bailey - but did not attend the hearing in person after American officials stepped in. Instead, she was sentenced via a video link from her lawyer's office in Washington. Speaking to Sky News, a lawyer who has advised the family since Harry's death has now said an enquiry promised by David Lammy when Labour got into power will begin "within three weeks". Radd Seiger told The News Hour with Mark Austin that the enquiry will be chaired by Dame Anne Owers, who is "going to do a rapid piece of work". "We just want to leave a legacy for Harry, so what his family went through never happens again," he said. Harry's mother, Charlotte Charles, added: "The failings need to be out there for all to see. "Certainly for us to learn about and for everyone else to learn about, so we can make sure in future, families like us do not get treated the way that we were treated." It is understood that the investigation, which is expected to last three months, will not include scrutiny of the role or actions of the US government. The enquiry is separate from a recent report on how Northamptonshire Police proceeded in the case. The force last week apologised and admitted failures in their handling of the investigation, after the report found officers prioritised the suspect's welfare. 2:48 Assistant Chief Constable Emma James apologised "for what is now clear was a failure on our part to do the very best for the victim in this case, Harry, and his family who fought tirelessly in the years that followed to achieve justice for him". She added in a statement: "The picture which emerges is one of a force which has failed the family on a number of fronts". The Dunn family have filed a complaint


BBC News
31 minutes ago
- BBC News
Teenage arsonist at Rotherham asylum seeker hotel riot sentenced
Two 16-year-old boys have been sentenced after participating in "disgraceful" violent disorder outside a South Yorkshire hotel housing asylum defendants, who cannot be named due to their age, admitted violent disorder, with one admitting a further charge of arson reckless as to whether life is inside the Holiday Inn Express in Manvers, Rotherham, "thought they were going to die at the hands of the violent, racist mob" on 4 August, Sheffield Youth Court teenagers, who were both told by a judge they would have been jailed had they been adults, were given year-long referral orders. The first defendant was captured on CCTV adding wood to a fire which was burning against the played to the court showed him hurl a fire extinguisher at police officers and push a metal bin towards a police Ford, defending, told the judge: "He wants me to assure you he isn't racist - he happened upon the incident without knowing what it was."He got carried away, swept up in it, and was being encouraged by adults present." When district judge Tim Spruce questioned why he initially told police he wasn't there, the boy said: "I didn't admit to it because I was scared. Sorry."Judge Spruce said the boy's actions could have resulted in "catastrophic harm and loss of life"."One adult charged with similar offences to you received a term of nine years," he told the boy."Make no mistake, if you were an adult you would be going to jail right now."Further CCTV showed the second boy pushing a burning bin towards the was part of a crowd which "violently" rocked a police van "to the point it became completely unstable", the judge said. 'Won't happen again' He told the boy he would have faced three to five years in prison had he been older."You were fully engaged, chanting, making violent gestures," the judge boy's mother took him to a police station after seeing an appeal for suspects shared on social Walker, defending, said: "He was helping his mum with the shopping before he got involved – that shows what he ordinarily does behave like."He didn't appreciate [the racial element] at the time – that was not his motivation."The teenager told the judge: "I would like to say I am very sorry for what I've done."It's not the real me, what happened on that day, and it won't ever happen again." Judge Spruce said many of the 58 police officers who were injured had not returned to work due to the "anxiety and distress" caused by the said: "Within that hotel there were families of migrants who had already fled trauma in their own countries, once again placed in fear, along with staff at the hotel."Disorder of this nature was extremely frightening for anyone close by and for people watching on the television."He added: "It was shameful and disgraceful, leaving communities terrified and intimidated."He said he accepted neither boy had overt racist views or negative views towards asylum seekers and their actions had been "isolated behaviour in a highly unique set of events".Referral orders can include courses about hate crime, fire safety and victim awareness, the court heard. Listen to highlights from South Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North