Ban on Palestine Action would have ‘chilling effect' on other protest groups
The crackdown on protest in England and Wales has been ringing alarm bells for years, but the decision to ban Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws raises the stakes dramatically.
As the group itself has said, it is the first time the government has attempted to proscribe a direct action protest organisation under the Terrorism Act, placing it alongside the likes of Islamic State, al-Qaida and National Action.
The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said the proposed ban was evidence-based and had been assessed by a wide range of experts. 'In several attacks, Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the government,' she said.
Proscribing the group, which uses direct action mainly to target Israeli weapons factories in the UK, would make it illegal not only to be a member of Palestine Action but to show support for it.
Given that neither its methods nor its targets are unprecedented, a ban is likely to make every group which has an aim of 'progressing its political cause and influencing the government' through protest think twice.
Greenpeace UK's co-executive director, Areeba Hamid, said a ban would 'mark a dark turn for our democracy and a new low for a government already intent on stamping out the right to protest. The police already have laws to prosecute any individuals found guilty of a crime.'
Laws passed in recent years have already increased police powers to restrict and shut down protests. At the same time, protesters have often been gagged from telling juries what motivated their actions and received record prison sentences.
The final straw for ministers appears to have been the embarrassing security breach at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on Friday, in which two Palestine Action activists broke in and sprayed two military planes with red paint. But protesters have caused criminal damage to military facilities in the past and even been acquitted for it, while Cooper herself admitted it might not amount to terrorism.
Before becoming prime minister, Keir Starmer successfully defended protesters who broke into an RAF base in 2003 to stop US bombers heading to Iraq. He argued that it was lawful because their intention was to prevent war crimes.
Palestine Action said that pro-Israel groups had lobbied for the ban and there is evidence to support that contention.
Internal government documents released under freedom of information laws have revealed meetings, apparently to discuss Palestine Action, between the government and Israeli embassy officials, although they were heavily redacted. Ministers have also met representatives from the Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems.
The organisation We Believe in Israel, which Labour MP Luke Akehurst used to be director of, began a campaign this month to ban Palestine Action.
In an accompanying report, it stated: 'In July 2022, the group was investigated under counter-terrorism protocols following intelligence suggesting contact between some of its members and individuals linked to Hamas-aligned networks abroad (see: Metropolitan Police briefing, classified).
'While the investigation yielded no direct terror charges, it underscored the degree of concern shared by law enforcement agencies over Palestine Action's increasingly radicalised behaviour.'
It is not clear how or why We Believe in Israel was granted access to classified documents.
There was no reference to links to Hamas in Cooper's statement but she did refer to Palestine Action as threatening infrastructure which supports Ukraine and Nato, echoing language in We Believe in Israel's report.
With the government already unpopular among many over its stance on Gaza, the planned ban risks looking like it is based on Palestine Action's cause rather than its methods.
Akiko Hart, Liberty director, said: 'Proscribing a direct-action protest group in this way potentially sets a new precedent for what we do and do not treat as terrorism.
'We're worried about the chilling effect this would have on the thousands of people who campaign for Palestine, and their ability to express themselves and take part in protests. Proscribing Palestine Action would mean that showing support for them in any way – for example, sharing a post on social media or wearing a logo – could carry a prison sentence.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
38 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Labour MP warns proscribing Palestine Action would be ‘kneejerk reaction'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has unveiled plans to proscribe the organisation, which armed forces minister Luke Pollard described as 'not a protest group'. Counter-terror police are investigating the break-in last Friday, when activists damaged two RAF Voyager aircraft using paint. Palestine Action claimed responsibility for the incident, and the organisation posted footage from the Oxfordshire base on its X account, claiming that the planes help to 'collect intelligence, refuel fighter jets and transport weapons to commit genocide in Gaza'. Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside Kim Johnson told the Commons that she was 'concerned by the Government's kneejerk reaction to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation'. She told MPs: 'This country has a long history of protests, as I mentioned in this chamber last week, some on British military sites, and none have been branded as terrorists.' Ms Johnson added that authorities could pursue those responsible for 'criminal damage, but not as a terrorist', and asked: 'Can the minister set out what steps his department will take to ensure peaceful protest activity is not wrongly categorised as a national security threat?' Mr Pollard replied: 'The proscription of Palestine Action has been something that has been considered over a long period of time by my colleagues in the Home Office. 'It is a decision that they have taken after considering the facts, those in the public domain and those perhaps held privately, and we are certain that this is the right course of action to keep our country safe in these difficult times.' Liz Saville Roberts, Plaid Cymru's Westminster leader, said: 'Direct action at military bases is nothing new. We remember with respect the women who marched from Wales to Greenham Common, and the thousands of women who joined them. 'They didn't just march, they pulled down fences. They criminally damaged infrastructure. Protesters tugging at the fence at RAF Greenham Common in 1983 (PA Archive) 'So, does the minister recognise the risk implicit in proscribing protest groups calling out war as terrorist organisations?' Ms Saville Roberts was referring to a demonstration between 1981 and 2000, when anti-nuclear weapons protesters set up the Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp. Mr Pollard replied: 'They're not a protest group. They are people that have undertaken severe criminal damage to military assets. They're people who are increasingly using violence as part of their modus operandi. 'The decision that the Home Secretary has taken has not been taken lightly and reflects the seriousness of the intent of that organisation. 'I welcome free speech, I welcome debate and challenge, but vandalising RAF jets is not free speech – that is criminal damage, that is interventions on a military base, that is – as I say in my statement – not only epically stupid but also a threat to our national security and the Home Secretary was right to proscribe them.' In his statement, Mr Pollard had earlier told MPs that personnel at Brize Norton 'work tirelessly to support our armed forces deployed across the world to deliver military assistance to Ukraine, and they have been formally recognised for their contribution in flying humanitarian aid into Gaza, so this action does nothing to further the path to peace'. Sir Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP for New Forest East, warned that 'it would do the country and the Government no favours if they were to lose in court a challenge to the process of proscription, because whereas the secret sabotage of planes would certainly have been an act of terrorism leading to proscription, the fact is, this was a performative act which they announced they had done'. MPs will have a 'full debate' in Parliament as part of the proscription process, Mr Pollard pledged in response, as he said the bid to proscribe Palestine Action was put together after 'considerable thought'. MPs also heard that the 'fence is not formidable' at Brize Norton, after Liberal Democrat MP for Witney Charlie Maynard told the Commons that 'security at the base has been really underinvested for a long time'. Mr Maynard said he had walked around the base's perimeter in his constituency 'quite a few times'. Mr Pollard said the Government's response had already 'helped identify a number of immediate steps' to bolster security at the site. The minister added: 'He is right that much of our armed forces estate and our armed forces have been hollowed out and underfunded for far too long. 'It's precisely for that reason that I welcome the increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027. 'Our armed forces are brilliant but it's time they had first-class facilities.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Keir Starmer forced to boost defence spending in Nato-first policy
Britain spent 2.3 per cent of its national income on defence in 2024 compared with the United States which spent 3.19 per cent. Sir Keir Starmer has now been forced to commit to spend 5 per cent of national income on security by 2035, a figure which includes 3.5 per cent on hard defence, in line with Nato allies and to appease Donald Trump. Experts say this will eventually cost taxpayers an extra £40 billion a year. There are no clear plans on how to pay for it. Starmer delivers a speech during a visit to the BAE Systems' Govan facility in Glasgow earlier this month ANDY BUCHANAN/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES Under Nato's rules for spending, the UK expects to reach at least 4.1 per cent of national income on security in 2027. 'Security' will include infrastructure projects and military mobility, such as adapting roads and bridges for tanks. 'Hard defence' is weapons and troops. Only a few weeks ago the government was tying itself in knots over defence spending, with the prime minister refusing to commit to spend just 3 per cent of defence by 2034, baffling senior military figures. Starmer said 3 per cent during the next parliament was an 'ambition' only, because he would not indulge in 'performative fantasy politics', despite knowing he would be heading to the Nato summit under pressure to commit to much more. John Healey, the defence secretary, rowed back on remarks made to The Times where he said spending 3 per cent in the next parliament, by 2034, was a certainty. Three days later he said 'we will never make commitments to increase funding unless we can show how we are paying for them'. The prime minister visits a Vanguard class submarine off the coast of Scotland CROWN COPYRIGHT However, after pressure from the US, Britain and Europe have been left with no choice but to dramatically increase their spending. The US expects Britain to take on a leading role in Europe and the strategic defence review emphasises a 'Nato-first' policy. It is unclear how exactly the government plans to spend billions of pounds a year extra on defence and security by 2035. Professor Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general at the Royal United Services Institute, has said meeting 3.5 per cent by 2035 would cost £40 billion more annually than if it stayed at 2.5 per cent in the same year. So far the government has only set out how it plans to spend 2.6 per cent on defence by April 2027, mainly by taking money away from the aid budget.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
An Airbnb in a war zone? Global holiday rental giant facing legal action over offering stays in 100s of homes in illegal Israeli settlements
Airbnb is facing serious legal heat as human rights groups demand the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA) launch a criminal investigation into the global rental giant over alleged money laundering links to Israeli settlements. According to a damning new complaint, Airbnb have breached UK anti-money laundering laws by listing more than 300 holiday rentals in illegal Israeli settlements across the West Bank and East Jerusalem - territories widely recognised as occupied under international law. The complaint, brought forward by the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and Palestinian rights organisation Al-Haq, was officially filed with the NCA on Tuesday. The groups accuse Airbnb's UK arm of handling profits from crimes committed under international law - namely, the ongoing occupation of Palestinian land. But Airbnb's operations in the region are no secret. In fact, the company appears on the United Nation's blacklist of companies involved in activities tied to Israeli settlements - areas the UN, and now the International Court of Justice (ICJ), have declared illegal. In a landmark ruling in July 2014, the ICJ stated Israel 's occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal under international law. The court further ruled that all states have a duty to end trade and investment that supports the occupation, a damning blow to any company still profiting from it. Yet, Airbnb appears to have continued to operate in these areas. Ashish Prashar, former UK senior advisor to the Middle East Peace Envoy and current a special advisor to GLAN on their Palestine Portfolio, told MailOnline: 'By bringing this case against Airbnb, what we're saying is that no one, no business, no company, no entity, should make profits from war crimes'. Ashish Prashar, former UK senior advisor to the Middle East Peace Envoy and current a special advisor to GLAN on their Palestine Portfolio, told MailOnline: 'By bringing this case against Airbnb, what we're saying is that no one, no business, no company, no entity, should make profits from war crimes'. As of 2023, there are currently over 300 listed properties up for rent in occupied territories which Al-Haq have displayed in a settlement watch infographic. Al-Haq's Forensic Architecture Investigation Unit (FAI) conducted an in-depth investigation into Airbnb listings located in illegal Israeli settlements within the occupied West Bank. 'This investigation uncovered how Israeli settlers exploit resources and infrastructure systematically denied to Palestinians, including by using accommodation platforms like Airbnb to sustain their illegal presence on stolen Palestinian land,' the organisation's website reads. But despite the unraveling controversy, Prashar claims as a business, Airbnb have a choice in who they carry out business with and are willingly choosing to rent out properties on 'stolen land' and with 'an entity that's being accused of genocide right now'. 'The fact that Airbnb are willing to continue the charade, are willing to continue to extract money from war crimes, says a lot about Brian Chesky (Airbnb's CEO), says a lot about the leadership of the company and says a lot about the board and everyone else who's responsible for these decisions,' he said. Echoing Prashar's concerns, Shawan Jabarin, general director of Al-Haq, said: 'At a time when we are witnessing genocide in Palestine, businesses like Airbnb are providing services that deny the Palestinian people their means of subsistence, threatening the viability of the group. 'Following the finding by the International Court of Justice, that Israel's occupation is illegal, business activities trading in goods and services that maintain the illegal occupation, must come to an end.' Despite earlier pledges, Airbnb has a patchy track record. In November 2018, following heavy criticism from Human Rights Watch, Airbnb promised to 'act responsibly' and remove all listings in illegal Israeli settlements. But less than six months later, in April 2019, the company quietly reversed its decision under legal pressure from Israeli hosts and US-based guests. It instead vowed to donate profits from Israeli settlement listings to humanitarian causes. An Airbnb spokesperson told MailOnline: 'Airbnb operates in compliance with applicable laws in Ireland, the UK, and the US. 'Since 2019, Airbnb has donated all profits generated from host activity in the West Bank to an international nonprofit, in line with our global framework on disputed territories'. Critics claim this is not good enough. 'By continuing to let out properties on behalf of Israelis, who illegally occupy on stolen land, or even in some cases stolen homes from Palestinians, [Airbnb] are supporting that occupation. Airbnb listing a property in the West Bank is a breach of that ruling. They're in breach of international law,' Prashar said. 'They are basically saying: "We're cool with the Palestinians being dominated because we're going to make a quick buck of it and donate some of the rest of the money",' he added. Zainah el-Haroun, a spokesperson for Al-Haq also said the donation 'misses the point entirely'. 'It is not enough to simply donate profits. Companies are morally and legally bound to ensure their activities do not support, maintain or benefit for Israel's unlawful occupation,' Haroun said. 'No charitable donation can undo the underlying human rights harms caused by facilitating any aspect of Israel's unlawful occupation.' Human rights lawyers have said the donations do not cleanse the company of criminal liability. 'These are the first ever cases to apply anti-money laundering legislation in the UK and elsewhere to business activity in the illegal Israeli settlements,' Gerry Liston, a senior lawyer at GLAN said. 'They demonstrate that senior executives of companies profiting from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory risk prosecution for a very serious criminal offence'. Alongside the UK complaint, GLAN has filed a legal challenge in Ireland after police there refused to investigate Airbnb Ireland's role in facilitating listings in the settlements. GLAN has also sent a 'preservation letter' to Airbnb's parent company in the US - a key move under American legal procedures that could pave the way for discovery of internal documents. A spokesperson for the National Crime Agency declined to confirm whether it would investigate, telling Middle East Eye: 'The NCA does not routinely confirm or deny the existence of investigations.' In the Netherlands, a similar case led by the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) has also been brought against which like Airbnb lists properties in the illegal Israeli settlements. has been approached for comment. ELSC joined GLAN, Sadaka and AL-Haq at the launch of the complaint at a press conference in Dublin on June10, 2025. But with mounting legal pressure from coordinated actions across the UK, US, and Ireland, Airbnb's global business model is now under unprecedented scrutiny.
