
UN Experts Urge United Kingdom Not To Misuse Terrorism Laws Against Protest Group Palestine Action
'We are concerned at the unjustified labelling of a political protest movement as 'terrorist',' the experts said. 'According to international standards, acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism.'
The Government asserts that the group is 'terrorist' because some members have allegedly caused criminal damage to property, including at military bases and arms companies, with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the Government. Proscription would trigger a range of criminal offences relating to support for the group.
Palestine Action positions itself as a national activist network that promotes civil disobedience and takes direct action against companies and institutions deemed by the group as being used by Israel to violently enforce apartheid, occupation, colonisation and genocide in Palestine.
'While there is no binding definition of terrorism in international law, best practice international standards limit terrorism to criminal acts intended to cause death, serious personal injury or hostage taking, in order to intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act,' the experts said.
'The UK supported this approach in voting for Security Council resolution 1566 in 2004,' they said. 'Mere property damage, without endangering life, is not sufficiently serious to qualify as terrorism.'
The experts noted that, if national law criminalises property damage as terrorism, as it does in the UK, then it would be good international practice in a democracy to exclude acts of advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action that do not result in death or serious injury. The Security Council's Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate supports this approach.
'Protest actions that are not genuinely 'terrorist', but which involve alleged property damage, should be properly investigated as ordinary crimes or other security offences,' they said.
Banning Palestine Action would make criminal offences out of actions relating to the group, including membership, inviting support for it, arranging a meeting in support of it and publicly wearing clothing or carrying articles associated with the group. The experts warned disproportionate penalties of up to 14 years in prison could apply.
'These offences would criminalise legitimate activities by innocent members of the group that do not contribute in any way to property damage by other members, let alone 'terrorism' which, if properly defined, the group has not committed,' they said.
'Individuals could be prosecuted for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and opinion, assembly, association and participation in political life. This would have a chilling effect on political protest and advocacy generally in relation to defending human rights in Palestine.'
The experts have been in contact with the UK Government in relation to this issue.
*The experts: Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; George Katrougalos, Independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.

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


Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Pandemic Perspectives Focus Of COVID-19 Inquiry Public Hearing Next Week
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned will next week hear a range of perspectives on the pandemic as the Inquiry's first public hearing begins. The Inquiry's 'Pandemic Perspectives' public hearing will take place between Monday 7 July and Friday 11 July. This hearing will allow Commissioners to hear from groups, organisations, and individuals from around Aotearoa New Zealand about their experiences of the pandemic and the Government's response to COVID-19. 'The Pandemic Perspectives public hearing will allow us, in the open, to hear a range of experiences as well as suggestions for future pandemic responses. It is important we listen to these voices and ask key questions, so we can develop robust findings and recommendations,' says Grant Illingworth KC, Chair of the Inquiry. Individuals, organisations and experts will talk about the effects of key public health decisions, including social division and isolation, health and education, and business activity. Commissioners are focusing the hearing on three key areas of the Inquiry's terms of reference and that have been key themes raised in public submissions already received by the Inquiry: · Lockdowns in 2021, in particular the extended lockdown in Auckland and Northland from September 2021. · Vaccine approvals and safety. · Introduction and use of vaccine mandates throughout 2021 and 2022. The hearing schedule and list of witnesses is available on the Inquiry's website: A second and final public hearing will take place from 20 August to 27 August in Pōneke Wellington, where Commissioners will hear from key decision makers who led the Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and from senior public servants. 'As Commissioners, our job is to identify lessons from the country's COVID-19 response to ensure that as a nation, we can be better prepared for future pandemics,' says Mr Illingworth. 'Our goal is to provide recommendations – that can be understood by all New Zealanders – to help build a strong response for the future. 'We need a well-organised, resilient, robust defence, and we need to be able to come together as a country to face future pandemics.' Alongside the public hearings, the Inquiry has also held interviews with key decision makers, met with individuals and organisations who experienced the pandemic and the response to it, gathered 31,000 public submissions, and sought extensive written evidence from Government departments and other organisations. 'We are encouraged by and thank the 31,000 of you who shared your experiences through our recent public submissions process. I also thank the huge number of people and organisations we've met in engagements up and down the country. Your experiences and perspectives are vital to our work,' says Mr Illingworth. The 'Pandemic Perspectives' public hearing will be streamed on the Inquiry's website so it can be watched live by the public. Registered media will be able to attend the hearing for reporting purposes. A range of accessible resources will also be available during and after the hearings. Due to physical limitations, the Inquiry cannot accommodate members of the public.

RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Watch live: Christopher Luxon faces questions at ambulance service visit
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is set to face questions as he speaks to reporters after visiting Hato Hone St John in Auckland. We'll be livestreaming his comments at the top of this page shortly. It comes as the government turns its attention to the next quarter with Luxon citing cost of living pressures as a continuing pressure. There is also pressure from the Telecommunications Forum over the failure of the 111 system for Golden Bay residents yesterday as another storm hit the region. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.


NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
PM Christopher Luxon to speak after slew of law and order announcements
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is set to speak in Auckland following his Government's barrage of law and order announcements. Luxon is expected to front media about 12.45pm following an engagement with St John. A livestream can be found at the top of the article. One of the first law and order announcements of the week was proposing longer prison sentences for people who assault first responders, such as paramedics, firefighters and prison officers. The changes would create a new offence for assaulting an on-duty first responder or prison officer. The maximum sentences for assaulting with intent to injure, or injuring with intent to injure, would be increased by two years. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith described violence against first responders and prison officers as 'heinous'. 'Where others may flee, first responders and prison officers run towards danger to help those who need urgent assistance,' Goldsmith said. 'Assaulting them puts multiple lives at risk, so there must be greater consequences for these heinous acts of violence. Our hardworking police officers, firefighters, paramedics and prison officers deserve better.' The proposed changes include: Assaulting a first responder or prison officer to have a maximum sentence of three years' imprisonment. This expands an existing provision on assaulting police to cover all first responders and prison officers. Assaulting a first responder or prison officer with intent to injure will have a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment. This is a two-year increase in penalty from the standard offence. Injuring a first responder or prison officer with intent to injure will have a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment and will be added to Three Strikes. This is also a two-year increase in penalty from the standard offence. Goldsmith, along with other ministers from NZ First and Act, announced several more measures aimed at increasing punishments for those committing offences, particularly retail crime. They included specific coward punch offences, strengthening trespass laws and introducing a new fines regime for shoplifters.