The Guardian view on proscribing Palestine Action: blurring civil disobedience and terrorism is a dangerous step
Some MPs still feared that a group like Greenpeace, which had destroyed genetically modified crops and temporarily halted nuclear weapons production at Aldermaston, might be proscribed. Mr Straw reassured them that such bans would be used only when absolutely necessary; he knew of 'no evidence whatever' that the actions of the environmental group 'would fall remotely under [its] scope'.
UN experts warned this week that 'acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism'. Yet on Wednesday, MPs voted – by 385 to 26 – to proscribe Palestine Action under the 2000 legislation. The Lords were expected to approve the order on Thursday. Unless a high court judge orders its suspension at a hearing on Friday, from Saturday, being a member of or simply expressing support for the group will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years. The ban was announced days after Palestine Action claimed responsibility for breaking into an RAF base and spraying paint on to planes that it claimed were supporting the Israeli military campaign. Four people have been charged.
Hundreds of lawyers, cultural figures and groups such as Amnesty International have condemned the ban. It is lamentable that MPs backed it. But cynically listing two white-supremacist organisations on the same order – Maniacs Murder Cult, whose members have claimed violent attacks globally, and Russian Imperial Movement, which seeks to create a new Russian imperial state – made it harder for legislators to vote it down.
The British state has plenty of legislation to deal with direct action. Palestine Action activists have been arrested and charged with criminal damage, violent disorder and burglary. The suspicion is that frequent acquittals have led to this order. Pouring paint over military aircraft and buildings, and tossing smoke bombs, does not sound like the kind of extreme act that the public rightly reviles as terrorism. Rather, the ban appears designed not only to silence supporters but to reduce public sympathy by placing the group on a par with Islamic State and the extreme-right group National Action.
Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, alleges that Palestine Action's methods 'have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence'. The public will need to see evidence of this – rather than take such claims on trust – if their faith in the state is not to be undermined.
Palestine Action has targeted property to challenge a war in which tens of thousands of civilians have been killed. The group's protests embarrass the government: the UK continues to supply equipment to Israel's military as it slaughters Palestinians. Despite overwhelming evidence that war crime is piling on war crime in Gaza, and reportedly contrary to the advice of its own lawyers, the British government will not say that Israel has broken international law. The government should be doing all it can to end this conflict, not to criminalise protests against it. But you do not need to sympathise with Palestine Action's aims to believe that its proscription sets a chilling precedent and undermines democracy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
As St George's Cross protests grow, what are the rules on flying flags?
F lags. Troublesome, tribal things that can be used as an assertive statement of ideological, religious, national or ethnic supremacy. We see that in Northern Ireland with nationalists and loyalists commandeering lamp posts as flag poles and painting the kerbstones green-white-and-orange or red-white-and-blue, with matching folk murals glorifying martyrs and battles. It's something that seems to be spreading to parts of England, too. But a flag can also be an innocent, joyous emanation of a shared identity and values – as when the Lionesses did England proud. Vexillology can be a highly vexing matter, as we witnessed when the royal family insisted on protocol after the death of Diana, Prince of Wales and having the royal standard flown at full rather than half mast, later giving in to public pressure. In fact, there are official guidelines to help us navigate this newly popular method of free expression… What does the government say? The official guidance is issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and dates back to when Boris Johnson was premier and started making ministers put flags in the background of every public appearance and on any and every public building. It was only a partial attempt to boost confidence in the dismal post-Brexit life of the nation. Anyway, Angela Rayner is in charge of flags now, and so the guidance should probably be read in an Angela Rayner accent: 'Flags are a very British way of expressing joy and pride – they are emotive symbols which can boost local and national identities, strengthen community cohesion and mark civic pride. The government wants to see more flags flown, particularly the union flag, the flag of the United Kingdom. It is a symbol of national unity and pride.' Great. What can we fly? Almost anything in principle, within the rules, but probably not the terrorist stuff, not even in private, given that it would be likely taken as promoting violence. The list of flags that do not require consent (proving they don't contravene other rules or laws) include: any country's national flag; the Commonwealth, UN or other international body of which the UK is a member; any British island, county, city, village, or borough; the Scottish and Irish saltires; armed forces flags; the flag of St George (England – but not additionally adorned with eg a bulldog, Nigel Farage, St George himself or the name of a football team). Curiously, the evocative and lovely Welsh Dragon flag isn't specifically covered in the guidance, but we may assume it's OK. On that basis, then, when, as planned, Palestine is officially recognised as a sovereign state by the United Kingdom, the now familiar design can be waved around with the full backing of the government. On the other hand, the European Union's starry flag now technically requires consent, as does the 'Ulster banner', the old Northern Ireland flag featuring the red hand emblem, much favoured by some unionists and loyalists but no longer formally recognised (if it ever was). What about the rainbow flag? It's one of a number that also don't require consent but need to conform to a few rules on the size of flagpoles and their position. Corporate and sports flags and the NHS logo fall into this category. The 'progress' flag, a more 'inclusive' adaptation of the rainbow flag and the trans flag aren't mentioned. What can't we fly? 'Any flag not identified above requires express consent from the local planning authority before it can be flown.' So that includes the EU and Wales, and party political ones among others – but not Palestine. Can I have a flagpole? You can have two on on the roof of your house if you want, or in the grounds, provided one is from the list that don't require permission: 'No restrictions on the size of any character or symbol displayed on the flag, except where a flag is flown within an area of outstanding natural beauty, area of special control, the Broads, conservation area or a National Park (referred to elsewhere as 'controlled areas') where the characters may be no more than 0.75m in height (0.3m in height in an area of special control).' Elsewhere, eg on the outside wall, requires permissions. You are referred to the regulations governing the flying of flags set out in the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 (as amended in 2012 and in 2021).
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Hopes that ICRIR can deliver truth and accountability around the Shankill bomb
Hope has been expressed that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) can deliver truth and accountability around the Shankill bomb. Two men bereaved in the Provisional IRA bomb attack in 1993, and the son of a ambulance worker also murdered by the PIRA, have requested the new body take on their cases. The ICRIR was created by the previous government's controversial Legacy Act and is headed by former Northern Ireland Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan. Bereaved families, victims and certain public authorities can request the commission carry out an investigation into Troubles incidents. However, some have questioned the body's independence and its ability to uncover answers about Troubles crimes. In a statement issued through JWB Consultancy, Charlie Butler, who lost three members of his family in the Shankill Road bomb, and Gary Murray, whose 13-year-old sister Leanne was killed in it, said they want to know the full truth. One of the bombers, Thomas Begley, was killed by the blast, while Sean Kelly was convicted of murder following the bomb attack on a fish shop in the Shankill Road in 1993. JWB Consultancy said they have formally requested an ICRIR investigation into the atrocity, and hope to bring others involved to justice, including those who made the bomb, transported it and those who planned the attack. Mr Butler said others involved have escaped accountability. 'We have taken this step to continue the fight for justice for our loved ones,' he said. 'There has never been full criminal or public accountability brought to bear on many of those responsible for and who played a role in the Shankill bombing. 'We have inquiries and investigations galore into killings by loyalists or the security forces, but no such resources poured into holding PIRA accountable for their terrorist campaign. 'I hope the ICRIR will correct that imbalance and injustice. Time for truth.' Mr Murray said their fight for justice continues. 'The criminal liability for the Shankill bomb does not begin and end with the terrorist bombers, but rather every IRA member who played any role, whether active or supporting, in the plot to indiscriminately bomb the Shankill Road,' he said. 'We trust the ICRIR will conduct a robust and detailed investigation to finally hold all those involved accountable, and to provide us with the 'truth' we so often see nationalist/republican legacy groups, supported by Sinn Fein and former IRA terrorists, hold placards demanding. 'We want the truth about this PIRA atrocity.' Meanwhile, Paul Shields, the son of murdered ambulance worker and former RUC reservist Robin Shields, said his father was serving the community when two IRA gunman entered Broadway ambulance station and killed him. He said the family funeral was then disrupted by multiple IRA bomb alerts, which he said were 'designed to heap further grief upon the family and to frustrate the funeral service'. 'The murder of my father, in the prime of his life, robbed us of our family and him of the opportunity to see his children and grandchildren live their lives,' he said. 'The community also lost a courageous and dedicated servant, given that our father gave much of his life to public service both as an RUC reservist and ambulance worker. 'In death, PIRA still would not let our father rest, embarking on a series of bomb alerts designed to disrupt his funeral. 'We see and hear the catchphrase often from PIRA and their surrogates: 'Time for truth'. Yes, it is, and we as a family want the truth about the PIRA murder of our father, and all those involved to be held criminally liable.' A spokesperson for the ICRIR said: 'The commission is committed to serving victims, families and survivors. 'We respect people's choices about whether they come to the commission and our door will always remain open to all. 'We will continue to work to give answers to the over 200 individuals from across the community who have to come to us in their quest for truth and justice.'
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the Epping hotel ruling: asylum seekers must not be treated as pariahs in a Faragian Britain
Asked on the radio what should happen to asylum seekers accommodated in a Hertfordshire hotel, if a court were to rule that they must be moved out, the Conservative leader of Broxbourne Council, Corina Gander, said flatly: 'That's the government's problem.' Ms Gander had indicated that she would seek to challenge the use of the hotel following Epping council's successful legal precedent. Other local authorities will surely follow suit. As Britain's immigration debate turns ever more ugly, that is a problem for the nation as well as the government. Far-right groups were energetically involved in this summer's protests outside the Essex hotel, which followed the arrest of an Ethiopian asylum seeker for alleged sexual offences. The high court ruling has handed them a major opportunity that they will certainly seize. Home Office lawyers were stating the obvious when warning that Mr Justice Eyre's decision to grant the council's shutdown request 'ran the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests'. Cue Nigel Farage. While posing as a benign patriot in the saloon bar, Reform UK's leader continues to do his utmost to foment social discord in the hope of political gain. His call for nationwide demonstrations 'to get the illegal immigrants out', in the wake of the Epping ruling, underlines that the migrant debate in Britain is now more toxic than at any point since the 1970s. The repeated targeting of accommodation this summer and last has, thankfully, yet to result in a tragedy. But the kind of rhetoric now being deployed against young, male asylum seekers by senior politicians across the right is making one more likely. Against such a dismal backdrop, Labour finds itself in a deeply invidious position. It is possible that a judicial review of the Epping case in the autumn may overturn Mr Justice Eyre's ruling. Failing that, the government is likely to need alternative forms of accommodation for thousands of refugees far sooner than it intended, having already pledged to end the use of hotels by 2029. Relying on private contractors to move more asylum seekers into flats and houses, in an already overheated rental sector, will create its own tensions. The memory of the notorious Manston holding centre – now the subject of an independent inquiry into allegations of overcrowding, abuse and misconduct – should act as a cautionary tale amid rightwing calls for 'detention camps'. As a first strategic step, Labour should activate coming break clauses with the three main private providers that governments have relied upon. The successful integration of asylum seekers into communities requires a level of public planning and local investment that has been woefully absent. Epping must be the catalyst for a new settlement with affected councils, involving a far more collaborative approach and a considerably more engaged state. Most importantly, perhaps, ministers must begin to make an unabashed moral case for compassion towards vulnerable and exposed human beings. Mr Justice Eyre's unanticipated decision, made on the grounds of preventing further disruptive demonstrations in Epping, will have the likely effect of amplifying protests elsewhere. Among a significant minority of the population, refugees are increasingly being treated as a pariah group, undeserving of empathy and assistance. That is not how the majority of Britons think. In testing times, Labour needs to speak more loudly on their behalf and trust its own better instincts.
