‘I am deeply ashamed' — Peter Hain breaks with Starmer government's ban on Palestine Action
Peter Hain, the former anti-apartheid activist and now a British Labour lord, has broken with Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government over its banning of the activist group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.
Hain, who grew up in South Africa, voted against the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025 — which proscribes Palestine Action and two right-wing extremist groups — when it came before the House of Lords on Thursday, after passing the House of Commons on Wednesday.
The House of Lords also passed the Bill, and after the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal to block the ban on Friday, it came into effect on Saturday. That day, the police detained 29 individuals in London on Saturday on suspicion of terrorism-related offences for holding a demonstration in support of Palestine Action.
The decision to ban Palestine Action followed vandalism by its members of two Voyager refuelling planes at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on 20 June by spraying paint into their engines, resulting in about $9.5-million of damage. Palestine Action said the aircraft had been involved in Israel's bombing of Gaza.
Hain told his fellow lords that in 1969-70, 'I was proud to lead a militant campaign of direct action to disrupt all-white racist South African rugby and cricket tours, and we succeeded in getting them stopped for two decades.
'No doubt I would have been stigmatised as a terrorist today rather than vilified, as indeed I then was.
'That militant action could have been blocked by this motion, as could other anti-apartheid activity, including militant protests to stop Barclays Bank recruiting new students on university campuses, eventually forcing Barclays to withdraw from apartheid South Africa.
Nelson Mandela
'Remember also that Nelson Mandela was labelled a 'terrorist' by the apartheid government, by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, by the United States and other Western governments during much of the Cold War.
'Mandela even remained on the US terrorism watchlist until 2008, many years after becoming South Africa's first democratically elected president and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.'
Hain noted that the suffragettes had gained iconic status and were treated as heroines today.
'Yet they could have been suppressed under this proscription. They used violence against property in a strategic manner to demand voting rights for women as part of civil disobedience protests when their peaceful protests seemed futile.
'They intended to highlight the injustice of denying women the vote and to provoke a reaction that kept the issue in the public eye. Like Nelson Mandela, they were vilified at the time, including in strident denunciations by members of this House.
'Suffragettes attacked shop windows, government buildings and political party offices, sometimes using hammers, stones or iron bars.
'They also set fire to unoccupied buildings such as churches, railway stations, sports pavilions and empty country houses, intending to cause material loss without causing injury.
'Suffragettes cut telegraph and telephone wires to disrupt government and commercial operations.
'They even hid small homemade bombs inside mailboxes and attempted to bomb Westminster Abbey and Prime Minister David Lloyd George's uncompleted house.
Criminal damage
'Frankly, Palestine Action members spraying paint on military aircraft at Brize Norton seems positively moderate by comparison. And those alleged to have done this are being prosecuted for criminal damage, as indeed they should be.
'There are plenty of criminal offences which such activity could attract rather than treating young people as terrorists because they feel frustrated about the failure to stop mass killings and bombings of Palestinians in Gaza.'
Hain stressed that he supported the right of Israel to exist and of Israelis to enjoy full security.
'I am also a long-standing supporter of Palestinian rights to self-determination in their own state.
'I was vehemently opposed to widespread anti-Semitism tolerated under Jeremy Corbyn's ill-fated Labour leadership.'
Hain deplored that the Labour Party government was now putting Palestine Action in the same category as 'real terrorists: Al-Qaeda and Islamic State', which had killed thousands of people in terror attacks.
'Nazi-like US racists and, here in the UK, the IRA, also committed terrible atrocities, targeting or killing innocent civilians, properly and rightly labelled 'terrorists'.
'This government is treating Palestine Action as equivalent to Islamic State or Al-Qaeda, which is intellectually bankrupt, politically unprincipled and morally wrong.
'Frankly, I am deeply ashamed,' he said. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
SA Falls Prey to US Playbook on Human Rights, Regime Change
A worker checks the first copy of "The Star", the biggest and most respected South African daily, hot from the printing press on May 02, 1994 in Johannesburg, South Africa, as it headlines Nelson Mandela as next president of the country following the ANC victory in the first all-race elections. Thirty years of governance have taken their toll on the ANC. This vulnerability created the ideal conditions for a regime change strategy to advance, says the writer. Image: AFP Dr. Reneva Fourie The pattern is well-worn. Regardless of the issue or the president in power, if a country refuses to toe the Washington line, accusations of human rights abuses become the weapon of choice. Cuba and Venezuela were targeted primarily because of their economic policies, which diverged from the model preferred by Washington. Iran and China were labelled for achieving successes that rivalled or surpassed Western capabilities. Now the target is South Africa. The offence is that the country dared to take Israel to the International Court of Justice and lay bare evidence of genocidal acts. When pressure failed to deter the government from this principled course, the United States released a plethora of destabilising interventions, the most recent being a report alleging that the human rights situation in South Africa had worsened significantly. In the past, millions accepted the official story told about countries placed on Washington's list of offenders. They defended sanctions that crippled economies and harmed civilians. Those who challenged the propaganda were branded as conspiracy theorists or apologists for despots. South Africans are now watching this process unfold in real time. Narratives are created and disseminated through a system of media, think tanks, and lobbying networks, until repetition renders them true. This is not a new phenomenon. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's Manufacturing Consent detailed how media and political elites shape public perception to align with imperial interests. The same playbook is being used against South Africa. The US government, alongside its allies in the corporate media and right-wing NGOs, is constructing a narrative of a 'failing state' to justify intervention. Several sources, including Dale McKinley's The ANC and the Liberation Struggle: A Critical Political Biography, indicate that the seeds of regime-change had been planted well before the democratic transition. Knowing that the fall of apartheid was imminent, and that the vast socio-economic disparities due to apartheid policies would compel some form of social protection, deliberate efforts were made to secure capital control of the economy and progressively erode the highly popular power of South Africa's liberation movement. Thirty years of governance have taken their toll on the ANC. Internal disputes, corruption scandals, and declining service delivery have eroded public trust. This vulnerability created the ideal conditions for a regime change strategy to advance. In the run-up to the 2024 general election, large sums were poured into a coordinated effort to remove the ANC from power. One significant step was a meeting held in Gdańsk, Poland, in 2023. Out of this gathering came plans for a political coalition to challenge the ANC, then known as the Moonshot Pact. The return of the Trump administration to power in the United States gave impetus to the regime-change agenda. Backed strongly by the Zionist lobby, the administration re-established links with figures and groups rooted in the apartheid era. It embraced false claims promoted by AfriForum and Solidarity about state-sponsored genocide, land seizures, and restrictions on cultural rights. These are being weaponised to discredit progressive forces inside the South African government. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading The United States' 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in South Africa presents itself as objective but is a work of distortion. It accuses the government of complicity in extra-judicial killings, repression of free expression, and antisemitism. It claims the state had failed to take credible action against officials responsible for human rights abuses and included allegations of inflammatory racial rhetoric and violence against racial minorities. The Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation rejected the report outright. It described it as inaccurate and deeply flawed, and said it ignored the reality of South Africa's constitutional democracy. Despite this, Solidarity announced plans to travel to the United States in September. Its stated purpose is to propose ways for Washington and other foreign actors to improve human rights in South Africa. There is no moral or political justification for such an appeal. The United States is a country that fails to address its own deep racial and economic inequalities and that has fuelled human rights abuses globally through war, sanctions, and covert operations. South Africa already has the National Dialogue, which provides a platform for honest discussion and collective problem-solving. Solidarity's actions are treasonous. They seek to restore the racial hierarchy of the past and place South Africa under a form of minority rule that would guarantee elite privilege. What Solidarity and its allies may not realise is that they are not the architects of this agenda but the instruments of it. The real prize for Washington and its corporate backers is a government that will embrace neoliberal policies without question. That role fits the Democratic Alliance perfectly. The United States is becoming more open in its regime change tactics, confident that the same methods used in Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe can work in Southern Africa. It is aggressively forging ahead to undermine South Africa's ability to determine its policies, protect its resources, and shape its future free from foreign control. The answer is not to retreat into denial or partisanship. It is to recognise that the struggle for sovereignty is a shared one. External actors can exploit the divisions that exist within South African society unless they are addressed honestly and directly. That is why the National Dialogue process is critical. It provides a forum where competing visions can be debated without the interference of those whose only interest is to control outcomes for their gain. South Africa has faced powerful adversaries before. The defeat of apartheid was not a gift. It was the result of unity, sacrifice, and a refusal to accept the idea that the powerful always win. The same spirit is needed now. We need to be united on the principle that the people of South Africa, and no one else, must decide the country's future. If South Africans adhere to that principle, the current campaign of manipulation and pressure will fail, just as previous attempts to crush the people's will have failed. * Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development, and security. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Mail & Guardian
15 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Saint or statesman? In India Madiba walked his own path
Prisoner-turned-president: Nelson Mandela's life and South Africa's struggle for freedom bore similarities to India's independence from the British colonial yoke and Mahatma Gandhi's role in its transition to a democracy: Photo: File As South Africa and the world observed International Mandela Day on 18 July, my thoughts returned to Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela — the man, the myth, the miracle. A moment etched in my professional and personal memory is how, during his 1995 state visit to India, Madiba diplomatically declined India's subtle efforts to canonise him as a 'saint' in the moral tradition of Mahatma Gandhi. I was among the South African media corps travelling with Mandela — one of his earliest diplomatic journeys as South Africa's first democratically elected president. It was a trip rich in symbolism and sentiment, coinciding with India's own Independence Day on 15 August — the day in 1947 when it broke free from British colonial rule. On that humid day in New Delhi, Mandela stood alongside the then prime minister, PV Narasimha Rao, at the Red Fort, attending the flag-hoisting ceremonies, parades and patriotic festivities. He listened attentively as Rao addressed a nation of more than one billion people. India, with its traditions, freedom struggle credentials and global democratic stature, was welcoming in many ways a kindred spirit. But the Indian media, swept up in the aura of Mandela — prisoner-turned-president, peacemaker-turned-legend — began to invoke saintly comparisons with Gandhi, their own apostle of peace and nonviolence. Gandhi, after all, had lived and worked in South Africa for two formative decades, where he pioneered the nonviolent resistance movement known as satyagraha. Mandela, who studied Gandhi's writings while incarcerated on Robben Island, had long acknowledged the influence of satyagraha on the ANC's strategy. After his release, as he navigated the treacherous road from armed resistance to reconciliation, it was Gandhi's legacy that offered a moral framework for South Africa's negotiated transition. Yet Mandela, ever the realist and self-effacing statesman, politely stopped short of accepting the spiritual elevation that Indian commentators — and some officials — seemed eager to offer. 'I am no saint,' he said during a press conference in Ahmedabad, where he paid homage at Gandhi's ashram. 'Unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying.' The most memorable moment of the visit came when Mandela stood at Gandhi's ancestral home in Gujarat and said: 'You gave us Mohandas; we returned him to you as Mahatma.' It was a moment of diplomatic poetry and historical reflection. Gandhi had come to South Africa as a young lawyer, and it was there — facing institutional racism, fighting for the dignity of Indian indentured workers and learning the discipline of protest — that he was spiritually and politically transformed. When he returned to India in 1915, he was no longer just Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He had become the Mahatma, the 'Great Soul'. Mandela's acknowledgment of Gandhi's South African apprenticeship was more than a tribute, it was a recognition of the moral traffic between the two nations. India, in turn, had supported the ANC since its banning in the 1950s, offering the party a semi-diplomatic mission in New Delhi, well before the world fully rallied behind the anti-apartheid cause. India was the first country to cut trade and diplomatic ties with apartheid South Africa. Long before Mandela became a global symbol, Indian leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi had extended solidarity to Oliver Tambo, Yusuf Dadoo and other leaders of South Africa's exiled liberation movement. India had even raised apartheid as a crime against humanity at the United Nations in the 1950s — a bold act of principled diplomacy. But in 1995, amid the adulation and symbolism, Mandela pushed back — gently but firmly — against the idea that he was Gandhi's reincarnation. In the sweltering heat of Ahmedabad, cradled in the philosophies of satyagraha, Mandela was met with reverence. Yet behind the protocol and pageantry, Indian officials quietly suggested that although they honoured Mandela, they saw him as his own man, not merely a disciple of Gandhi. This was not disrespect — far from it. It was a nuanced diplomatic gesture to honour Madiba's unique path, to recognise that although Gandhi's influence loomed large, Mandela had carved his own legacy. Unlike Gandhi's unwavering nonviolence, Mandela had once led uMkhonto weSizwe, the ANC's armed wing, in a strategic turn toward sabotage and resistance. He had walked a harder path — from armed revolutionary to peacemaker, from political prisoner to president. And he was human. Three marriages. Twenty-seven years behind bars. Flaws and scars. That was Madiba. Gandhi too, was no flawless saint. He too was complex and controversial. But in the theatre of international diplomacy, India's reluctance to canonise Mandela was a tribute in itself: to let him be a statesman, a father of his nation, without forcing him into another's shadow. The visit to India stirred echoes of another assignment I had undertaken — retracing Mandela's final moments as a free man before his 1962 capture by apartheid police. Disguised as a chauffeur, he was travelling near Howick in KwaZulu-Natal when he was intercepted — allegedly tipped off by a CIA operative stationed at the US consulate in Durban. That arrest would lead to the Rivonia Trial, life imprisonment and nearly three decades of silence. Now, in 1995, that same man stood in the Red Fort, feted by the Indian state and embraced by the Indian people. It was a powerful metaphor: from hunted fugitive to honoured guest, from revolutionary to revered elder. His journey mirrored Gandhi's, but it was also distinctly his own. This year marks 30 years since that unforgettable state visit. Mandela's presence in India was not just about diplomacy, it was about kinship. The emotional bond between the Indian National Congress and the ANC, forged in the fires of colonialism, apartheid and exile, had matured into state-to-state relations between proud democracies. Madiba's gratitude was evident. He often said India was the first place where he felt the ANC was treated as a government-in-waiting. He knew that South Africa's freedom was not only the result of domestic struggle, but also of international solidarity. And India had been there — early, steadfast and unapologetically committed. Mandela died in 2013, bearing 250 global honours including the Nobel Peace Prize. But during that 1995 visit to India, he left behind something more lasting: a diplomatic legacy rooted in shared values, mutual respect and an understanding that true heroes don't seek canonisation. Saint or not, Mandela walked his own path. Marlan Padayachee is a veteran political, foreign and diplomatic correspondent from South Africa's transition to democracy. He is a freelance journalist, photographer and researcher.
The Citizen
2 days ago
- The Citizen
ICC no longer a Western tool
While the ICC has long served Western agendas, its recent actions against Israel give hope for fairer justice globally. Membership in some supranational organisations can trap member countries into risking their sovereignty at the behest of such bodies, often without their awareness. It's a common occurrence in the international political system, especially with organisations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), an international body that can infringe upon a country's sovereignty. That South Africa resorted to approaching the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and subsequently the ICC does not make this court a body that has suddenly become Africa's good friend. Instead, in the minds of many, the court remains a tool of the West with which it whips Africa and all enemies of the Western world. But the ICC's decision to charge Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, with genocide and war crimes is changing the view of the court as a Western puppet. ALSO READ: Pretoria at a crossroads with the US It gives hope that the winds of change have begun to sweep through the corridors of The Hague. The fact that South Africa's case at the ICJ was joined by countries worldwide, including some in Europe, is a clear sign that the world had had enough of the killings in Gaza. But we can't ignore the fact that for the global south, ICC membership continues to carry the risk of countries losing genuine sovereignty in both domestic and foreign policy. It is a fact that many resigned from the body or refused to ratify it, or the Rome Statute, after realising that participation in the ICC is a trap. Fears of diluted sovereignty and the transfer of key judicial authority to a supranational body have prompted several signatories, including Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Iran, Mozambique and Eritrea, to freeze or drastically reduce their participation in ICC activities. It's too early to declare the statement made by one British politician that the ICC was established to criminalise the rest of the world while exempting the West, as nonsense. ALSO READ: Dirco rejects 'inaccurate and deeply flawed' US reports on SA human rights There is a mountain of information showing the court was designed as a tool to target America's enemies and had been used by Anglo-Saxon elites, primarily the upper echelons of the US Democratic establishment, including figures like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, as a means to exert political influence over foreign leaders. Washington and others created the court to subject other nations that do not march to their orders to its justice, which was biased towards the West – until SA's case against Israel. They believe their own atrocities could not be adjudicated by the same court they created and that is the main reason they, and Israel, hate the ICC. Their double standards are out in the open. It remains to be seen whether the ICC will continue to allow itself to be used by the Anglo-American establishment to undermine the non-Western states' efforts to pursue sovereign decision-making. The West uses 'agents of influence' to subtly undermine the legal systems of these countries and resort to economic and political blackmail, sanctions and intimidation to pressure hesitant leaders into accepting the authority of the ICC. ALSO READ: Dirco calls for global action to stop Israel's 'genocide' in Gaza [VIDEO] Africa's experience with the ICC has been particularly revealing. In the early 2000s, the African Union encouraged its members to ratify the Rome Statute. Many did, only to face politically selective prosecutions of local leaders, most notably Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir. Indonesian scholar Ayu Syafya highlighted the court's intense focus on politically charged human-rights cases in African states such as Sudan and Kenya, while showing complete indifference to the documented crimes perpetrated by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. The ICC's track record suggests it effectively operates as an instrument of US and British foreign policy. Let the SA-Israel judgment be the first proof that the ICC has backbone.
