MP's 'we are Palestine Action' comment edited out of Hansard
The debate, which took place on June 2, saw Sultana speak against the proscription.
Video of the debate shows she said: 'We have to recognise that this will go down as a dark day in our country's history and one that will be remembered: people will ask, 'Which side were you on?' and I stand with the millions of people who oppose genocide, because I am one of them.
'I oppose the blood-soaked hands of this Government trying to silence us. So I say this loudly and proudly on Wednesday 2 July 2025: We are all Palestine Action.'
READ MORE: I'm an SNP MP. Here's why we abstained on proscribing Palestine Action
Hansard initially recorded that, before being cut off, Sultana had said: 'So I say this loudly and proudly on Wednesday 2 July 2025: We are all Palestine –'.
However, it has since been edited and now instead reports that Sultana said: 'So I say this loudly and proudly on Wednesday 2 July 2025 –".
After the group was proscribed, supporting or being a member of Palestine Action became punishable with up to 14 years in jail.
However, MP's statements in the Commons are protected by 'absolute privilege' – which ensures full legal immunity for comments made in Parliament. 'Qualified privilege' then allows fair and accurate media reports on Westminster proceedings based on those statements.
Screenshot of the official Hansard report, which has had Zarah Sultana's 'we are all Palestine Action' comment edited out (Image: UK Parliament) Responding to the edit on social media, Sultana said: 'Parliament and Hansard have removed 'We are all Palestine Action' from my speech on Wednesday 2 July 2025 – despite me saying it.
'This is a blatant attempt to censor me and rewrite the record. This is not how a democracy behaves.
'We will not be silenced.'
Sultana further shared a video of her speech from July 2, in which she can be clearly heard to say: 'So I say this loudly and proudly on Wednesday 2 July 2025: We are all Palestine Action.'
The UK Parliament has been asked why the change has been made, and whether it will correct Hansard to record what was actually said by the MP.
Police officers remove 83-year-old Reverend Sue Parfitt from a protest in support of Palestine Action (Image: PA) The proscription of Palestine Action led to 29 people being arrested on suspicion of terror offences in London last weekend, including an 83-year-old reverend.
Metropolitan Police circled around dozens of protesters standing quietly beneath a statue of Mahatma Gandhi, with placards that said: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action'.
The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million of damage.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
How German media outlets helped pave the way for Israel's murder of journalists in Gaza
What is the role of journalism when Palestinian reporters are treated as criminals and left to die? Last October, I spoke with the journalist Hossam Shabat. He described families packing what little they had left in northern Gaza as Israel began implementing its 'generals' plan'. Six months later, Shabat was dead – killed by Israel, accused of being a Hamas operative. Israel does not try to hide these killings. Instead, it often smears its victims in advance – branding journalists as 'terrorists', accusations that are rarely substantiated. These labels serve a clear cause: to strip reporters of their civilian status and make their killing appear morally acceptable. Journalists are not legitimate targets. Killing them is a war crime. The latest round shook the world: five Al Jazeera journalists were assassinated in a press tent in Gaza City, among them Anas al-Sharif, whose face had become familiar to anyone following Gaza up close. Both the UN and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) had warned that al-Sharif's life was in danger. Weeks later, he was dead. Meanwhile, a growing consensus recognises Gaza as the site of a livestreamed genocide. Yet in Germany – a country that prides itself on having learned the lessons of its own genocidal history – some of the most powerful media institutions have played a part in enabling Israel's actions. Some German journalists have even justified the killing of their Palestinian colleagues. The clearest example is Axel Springer, Europe's largest publisher and owner of Bild, Germany's biggest newspaper. Hours after the killing of al-Sharif became public, Bild splashed his image under this headline: 'Terrorist disguised as journalist killed in Gaza' (which was later changed to 'Journalist killed was allegedly a terrorist'). Let that sink in. About a week before, Bild had published another piece: 'This Gaza photographer stages Hamas propaganda.' The article targeted the Palestinian photographer Anas Zayed Fteiha, accusing him of staging images of starving Palestinians as part of a Hamas campaign, despite the evidence that the subjects of the photos were indeed starving and waiting for food. In the article, Fteiha's title as journalist appeared in quotation marks, implying he wasn't a real journalist, and that images of starvation were exaggerated fabrications. The Bild story – along with a similar piece in the liberal Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) – was swiftly amplified on X by Israel's foreign ministry, which cited them as proof that Hamas manipulates global opinion. Fteiha was branded an 'Israel- and Jew-hater' serving Hamas. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation quickly piled on, joined by rightwing influencers. In this case, German media had become a direct pipeline for Israeli talking points, quickly recycled into the international arena and repackaged as 'evidence'. Fteiha said in response: 'I don't create suffering. I document it.' Calling his work 'Hamas propaganda', he continued, 'is a felony against the press itself'. Just days before the Bild and SZ articles were published, one of Germany's largest journalists' associations, Deutscher Journalisten-Verband (DJV), issued a statement warning of 'manipulation' in press photography. It specifically cast doubt on images showing emaciated children in Gaza, claiming their condition 'apparently is not attributable to the famine in Gaza'. The DJV offered no evidence for this claim – largely because no such evidence exists. Facing backlash online, the association cited a July article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, whose author had speculated whether images of emaciated infants were really the result of starvation – or rather of preexisting conditions such as cystic fibrosis. The piece suggested that publications had been either negligent or manipulative in publishing these photos without further detail. Omitted was the fact that hunger and preexisting conditions can't be neatly separated and that no preexisting condition alone could produce such extreme emaciation. Bias isn't new in the German media landscape. At Axel Springer, support for the existence of the state of Israel is second on the list of the company's guiding principles, its so-called essentials. In September last year, Bild helped derail ceasefire negotiations by publishing an 'exclusive' report – excerpts from a Hamas strategy leaked to Bild by Benjamin Netanyahu's aides. In it, Bild claimed Hamas was 'not aiming for a quick end to the war', which neatly absolved Netanyahu of any responsibility for the breakdown in talks at the time. (In response to queries about the story, a Bild spokesperson told +972 magazine that the publication does not comment on its sources.) As it turned out, the Hamas document had been broadly misrepresented by Bild. The timing couldn't have served Netanyahu better: the story landed as mass protests put pressure on his position. Shortly after the Bild report was published, Netanyahu cited it in a cabinet meeting to cast the demonstrators as pawns of Hamas. The Bild article remains online, uncorrected. The problem, however, extends far beyond Bild and Axel Springer. Across legacy German media, failures to provide fact-based, balanced coverage of Israel and Palestine have been far reaching – and became glaringly obvious after the 7 October attacks. Fabricated claims, such as that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies, along with various other pieces of deliberate misinformation, remain uncorrected. Outlets across the political spectrum in Germany routinely omit historical context, frame Palestinian deaths in passive, depoliticised terms, and display a near-blind faith in Israeli military 'verification' – while ignoring a well-documented record of misinformation by Israeli state sources. In January, the ostensibly leftwing Die Tageszeitung ran a piece headlined: 'Can journalists be terrorists?' The article cited the Israeli military four times – and did not quote a single journalist in Gaza. Across the German media landscape, such narratives contribute to stripping Palestinian journalists of credibility, and – in the worst case – handing Israel readymade justifications for targeting them. Germany's 'never again' pledge should carry weight given its deeply genocidal history. Yet it rings hollow when the country's dominant outlets launder or supply propaganda to legitimise mass killing in Gaza. This is not journalism in the service of truth – it is journalism in the service of violence. Breaking this cycle would require a serious reckoning with the editorial cultures and political loyalties that have enabled German journalism to be weaponised in this way. The killing of journalists in Gaza makes one thing painfully clear: Israel does not want a record to be left. When the history of this genocide is written, there will be chapters on the media's role. Germany's section will be uncomfortably large. No one should claim they didn't see it happening. Hanno Hauenstein is a Berlin-based journalist and author. He worked as a senior editor in Berliner Zeitung's culture department, specialising in contemporary art and politics
The National
43 minutes ago
- The National
Acclaimed Scottish screenwriter dons 'Palestine Action' top at Fringe
Paul Laverty, who has written some of director Ken Loach's most famous films including The Wind That Shakes the Barley and I, Daniel Blake, donned a top with the words 'Genocide in Palestine, time to take action' emblazoned on the chest. The design is such that at a glance, the slogan could be taken to read 'Palestine Action'. Wearing clothing with the group's branding or name can result in a six month prison sentence under terror laws. Palestine Action were proscribed under the Terrorism Act in an unprecedented step against a protest group earlier this year after vandalising RAF planes. The screenwriter, who grew up in Wigtown, wore the T-shirt at an in conversation event in Edinburgh on Wednesday. Writing in The National, Laverty said: 'All the palaver over a black T shirt with the words 'Genocide in Gaza, time to Take Action': it's truly mind-boggling that hundreds may have been arrested, and some face terrorism charges for wearing this shirt.' Accusing UK Government ministers of having 'colluded with genocide', Laverty said: 'No doubt they will have teams of legal experts to argue otherwise. READ MORE: David Lammy broke law while fishing with JD Vance 'But in the court of public opinion who will ever forget Starmer's very first interview justifying the cutting off food and water to the entire population of Gaza? Who will forget Foreign Secretary Lammy at the dispatch box denying that Genocide was happening in Gaza, and Starmer too. 'It is vital to remember that the Labour Government did not revoke arms licences to Israel until September of 2024, long after tens of thousands of innocents had been bombed.' He added: 'Nothing this UK Government does, even with their revocation of arms licences, impinges on the genocide machine as it continues to murder the starving. Critically, there is no mention of support for the Boycott and Divestment Campaign which could make a difference. 'And shamefully, not one UK Cabinet member can say seven simple words: 'Genocide in Gaza, time to Take Action'. 'One day, when it all comes out, as it will, we will look back in horror and ask how it all unfolded. Western collusion will haunt us.'
ITV News
2 hours ago
- ITV News
Conservative leader 'understands' public opposition to elected mayors in Hampshire and Sussex
Public opposition to the introduction of new elected mayors in the South of England is "understandable", according to the Conservative leader. Kemi Badenoch said "devolution doesn't fix problems" but as Labour was pushing ahead with the reforms "we have to make the best of it". The government is creating new mayoral positions for 'Sussex and Brighton' and 'Hampshire and the Solent'. They would be similar to those in London and Greater Manchester – with powers over transport, housing, employment, policing and fire services. The role does not replace local councils, but ministers are separately carrying out a major shake-up of local government, abolishing separate district and county councils and forming new large unitary authorities. The first mayoral elections in Hampshire and Sussex are planned for May 2026, pending the approval of Parliament and some of the affected local councils. An official public consultation found 62% of residents in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight disagreed with the proposed new governance arrangements. Out of 5,988 respondents, just 24% agreed with the proposals. Opposition was even higher in Sussex, with 66% of the 5,959 members of the public who responded to the consultation disagreeing with the plans for a mayoral combined county authority. Asked by ITV News Meridian if she understood local opposition to the new directly-elected mayors, Kemi Badenoch said: "Yes, I do understand it and I've seen it all over the country. "But Labour has decided that. We're not in government anymore. The Conservatives are the opposition so we have to make the best of it." People on the Isle of Wight share their views on plans for a new 'Hampshire and the Solent' mayor Kemi Badenoch added: "The thing is, devolution doesn't work if you get the wrong people in. Where devolution goes wrong, as we've seen with the SNP running Scotland and Labour running Wales, is that when people don't have good ideas, don't have the high calibre of candidates then it will go wrong." The Tory leader visited Ryde alongside the party's candidate for mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, Donna Jones, Isle of Wight East MP, Joe Robertson, and Shadow Chancellor, Mel Stride. The Conservatives are the only major party to select their candidates for the new mayoral races in the South. Long-serving police and crime commissioner, Katy Bourne, is the party's pick for the Sussex position. Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and the Green Party all plan to announce their candidates in due course.
