2 days ago
Proscription was disproportionate – and has had a chilling effect
Last month I was granted permission by the high court to legally challenge the proscription of Palestine Action. The judge said the ban was arguably unlawful on the grounds that it was disproportionate with rights to free speech and protest, and that the home secretary failed to consult Palestine Action or any human rights organisations.
As my barristers argued, the proscription has had a chilling effect on thousands of people across the country. Examples include a former headmaster arrested for displaying a Private Eye cartoon, and protester Laura Murton being accused by police of potentially committing a terror offence by displaying a Palestine flag and a placard that said 'Free Gaza'. Even the UN human rights commissioner, Volker Türk, agrees the proscription is 'disproportionate and unnecessary'.
The impact on free speech is evident even as I write this piece. I'm given less latitude to counter the home secretary's claims than she is afforded to advance them. Her decision to proscribe gives her a higher degree of control of the narrative, as many papers will be reluctant, for legal reasons, to publish a piece that may make the readers sympathetic to Palestine Action's aims. So all I am allowed to say on that is contained within my first witness statement. But I must do at least this. It is important that readers understand our case.
As I explained to the court, Palestine Action 'take direct action against Israel's arms trade in Britain'. We 'put our bodies in the way of a military machine perpetrating genocide'. In my view the campaign has been effective, so I believe weapons firms and the Israeli embassy lobbied hard for ministers and police to crack down on Palestine Action.
However, proscribing a domestic direct action group has sparked outrage. So far, more than 700 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act for holding signs, while opposition to the ban is growing across the political spectrum. To save face, it seems to me the government has resorted to a smear campaign. Rather than solely litigating the case in the courts, they're also trying to litigate it in the media, where hard facts are swapped for soundbites.
Their newest claim refers to supposed evidence of 'disturbing' plans and ideas. Yvette Cooper failed to reference any such evidence in court ahead of the 'permission hearing' to challenge the ban, instead launching the claims on TV. These allegations are not supported by the security assessments disclosed by her own department, and don't match the facts.
The assessment to proscribe Palestine Action was made in March 2025, but it seems Cooper delayed proscription until the most politically convenient moment. If there were 'disturbing plans' and serious concerns of national security, why wait four months?
Even Keir Starmer weighed in, making reference to 'Jewish-owned' businesses. The intention seemed to be to imply that Palestine Action was antisemitic. In reality, it targeted dozens of companies associated with Israel's biggest weapons producer, regardless of the identities of the owners. This fact is known by the government, yet they continue to weaponise antisemitism.
I believe the idea behind the government's statements is to deliberately mislead the public and parliament. The group was banned due to 'serious property damage for a political cause', not because of racism or alleged violence against people. It is false to claim the organisation had violent intent against people. The home secretary's own security assessments say the direct action group didn't advocate violence or pose a threat to life.
Cooper's attempt to justify her decision by misleading the public shows only what a huge political misstep she has made. Her political career will be marked by the most draconian attack on our civil liberties in a generation.
Huda Ammori was co-founder of Palestine Action and is challenging its proscription in court
Photograph by Antonio Olmos
