Latest news with #civil liberties
The Guardian
14 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
We voted for and against the ban on Palestine Action. Now we have a plan to end this mess
Is terrorism really a vicar with a peaceful placard? As parliamentarians who are passionate about democracy and civil liberties, we know that both are under threat. A growing number of organisations encourage violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims. MPs are besieged with threats, advised not to hold in-person surgeries and are grieving still for two colleagues killed in the past 10 years. Anti-migrant protests and threats are encouraged by the far right to take place across the country. Yet attempts to address all this are increasingly destabilising public confidence in politics, emboldening those who fan the flames of hatred by claiming a 'two-tier' response. Without change, the danger that someone will get hurt – or killed again – will only grow. Driven by both homegrown and overseas extremism, and social media algorithms, there is a growing trend for direct action to end in physical harm or destruction in order to get noticed. Proscription is the primary tool open to governments to put a hard stop to this, but with nearly 100 organisations and hundreds more Britons now labelled 'terrorists' in recent weeks, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain parity between the organisations proscribed within the public mind. For any law to be effective, it has to be workable and legitimate. For it to defend democracy, it must also not be designed – or be seen to be designed – to spare ministers the difficulties of dealing with dissent. Proscription puts the person peacefully expressing opposition into the same category as the person planting a bomb or shooting a bullet. We came down on different sides in last month's vote on whether to proscribe Palestine Action, and neither of us have ever supported the group. But we both agree what is happening now neither protects protest nor makes protest policeable. We have three shared convictions. First, no one – including elected politicians and the police – should face violent threats or intimidation for doing the job that we ask of them, even if we disagree with how they do it. Second, everyone should be able to protest and engage in non-violent disruption without being lumped in with Islamic State, al-Qaida or the IRA. Third, legislation to uphold our civil rights and to stop intimidation should be cause-blind: protecting those whom we wish to beat at the ballot box by enabling all citizens to be heard and parliamentarians to do our jobs. How, then, should the government respond? First and foremost with common sense. Urgent police guidance should be issued to head off the car crash that proscription enforcement is rapidly becoming, by setting out a test of proportionality for any interventions. Proscribing the original Palestine Action group was said to be about stopping those inciting direct harm and violence. Going after people with a poster testing the boundaries of liberty – some who may or may not even support Palestine Action but feel strongly about Palestinian rights – confuses rather than clarifies the government's intention. People must be able to protest about the horror in Gaza, and the focus should be on what is happening in Palestine, not in Parliament Square. The government should be much more transparent about how it is upholding our constitutional rights. There is no free speech if one half of a political debate lives in fear of being targeted for disagreeing. We need mechanisms to stop those who use violence, threaten migrants or hound women instead of raising their voices to achieve their goals. Lord David Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, argued that proscription should always be a time-limited process – and we agree. It should also be targeted at real terrorists whose explicit intention is to kill innocent civilians. No democratic state should make arbitrary decisions and must actively seek the consent of citizens. As it stands, how proscription is achieved – short parliamentary debates in both Houses and, in the case of Palestine Action, bracketing the organisation along with two far-right groups in a single vote – fails this test. To have the ability to proscribe a group as 'terrorists', ministers and government must do much more to show the public how and why that is the case. We must also address the glaring inconsistencies and real gaps in law these cases reveal. Legislation on public order focuses on specific practices; proscription orders target specific terrorist groups. Nothing sits between this to recognise when organisations themselves encourage members repeatedly and deliberately to escalate intimidation in pursuit of their aim. Extreme groups create a climate of violence, leaving refugees waiting to be firebombed, Jewish citizens attacked, black and Muslim citizens living in fear, and women increasingly vilified. Getting the balance right means abolishing offences such as 'recklessly encouraging support' of a proscribed group and focusing instead on those who organise this criminality. Setting out how and when behaviour threatens our democracy – as distinct from criticising state policies – would also better maintain the integrity of the seriousness of terrorism charges. Stopping organisations that are not simply accidentally violent, but intentionally so, means a new offence is needed, distinct from the battery of existing criminal ones. This would recognise how groups that encourage violence and intimidation go beyond existing public order offences, disentangling non-violent direct action from violence or attacks on property and terrorism. The alternative – accepting that harm to individuals is an inevitable risk of protest because people feel strongly about something – is not tenable. Terrorism is different from terrifying opponents, but both are or should be criminal offences. The failure to make that distinction is both increasingly infecting the policing of protest and undermining the legitimate right to protest. Anyone who thinks this situation is simple – either an egregiously authoritarian power-grab from the government or a sincere intention to block violent thuggery – isn't paying attention. The status quo has come to mean equating peaceful witness with terrorism, and isn't sustainable. But neither is pretending there isn't a problem that threatens our ability to debate, disagree and ultimately decide in our democracy. Without action, it will be those with the loudest voices and the most lethal actors who win. Stella Creasy is the Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow. Peter Hain was the Labour MP for Neath from 1991 to 2015 and now sits in the House of Lords
The Independent
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Government urged to ‘think again' on Palestine Action ban
Labour peer Baroness Shami Chakrabarti has criticised the government's decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, warning it could lead to increased public support for the group. Her concerns intensified after over 500 people were arrested in central London for displaying items in support of a proscribed organisation during a weekend march. Baroness Chakrabarti argued that acts like criminal damage, such as spraying paint, do not equate to terrorism, and urged the government to 'think again' on the ban. Civil liberties groups, along with cross-party MPs, have condemned the mass arrests as disproportionate and an excessive use of counter-terrorism powers. The Home Secretary and Downing Street have defended the ban, saying that Palestine Action is a violent organisation responsible for significant injury and extensive criminal damage.
UAE Moments
31-07-2025
- Politics
- UAE Moments
Palestine Action Wins Bid to Challenge UK Ban
In a significant development, Huda Ammori, co-founder of the pro-Palestinian campaign group Palestine Action, has won her bid to legally challenge the UK government's decision to ban the organization under anti-terrorism laws. The ruling, issued by London's High Court, opens the door for a full judicial review into whether the proscription infringes on civil liberties, including the right to freedom of expression. Palestine Action, founded in 2020, has made headlines in recent years for its direct action campaigns targeting Israel-linked companies in the UK. Their protests have involved spraying red paint, blocking access to buildings, and damaging equipment used in arms manufacturing. The group claims these actions are aimed at ending British complicity in what it describes as Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Despite these claims, the UK Home Office, led by Interior Minister Yvette Cooper, enacted a ban on the group that came into effect shortly after midnight on July 5, following the failure of a legal appeal to suspend it. The proscription officially designates Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, making membership a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The legal challenge centers around the argument that this ban constitutes a 'disproportionate interference' with freedom of speech. Judge Martin Chamberlain, in his ruling, stated that Ammori's case is 'reasonably arguable,' thereby granting permission for a judicial review of the government's actions. The impact of the ban has been immediate and widespread. Since July 5, dozens of individuals have been arrested for holding signs showing support for Palestine Action. Ammori's legal team argues that the ban has had a chilling effect on free speech, with individuals voicing support for Palestinian rights now facing increased scrutiny from law enforcement. The British government, however, maintains its stance. Yvette Cooper emphasized that 'violence and criminal damage have no place in legitimate protest,' citing specific incidents such as the breaking into a military base and damaging of two aircraft as justification for the group's proscription. Meanwhile, Israel has denied accusations of war crimes in Gaza, following the escalation of violence that began on October 7, 2023, after an attack by Hamas militants on Israeli territory. The ongoing conflict has heightened tensions and intensified scrutiny of activism related to the Palestinian cause worldwide. The upcoming judicial review will be closely watched by human rights advocates, legal experts, and political observers alike, as it could set a precedent for how far governments can go in limiting activism under national security laws. For now, Palestine Action remains a banned organization, but Ammori's legal victory marks the first step in potentially overturning the proscription and reigniting debate on the balance between security and civil liberties in the UK.
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Good Trouble Lives On' protest planned near Trump's Mar-a-Lago for July 17
Protesters plan to take to the Southern Boulevard Bridge on July 17, to voice their opposition to President Donald Trump's presidency and what they decry as authoritarian policies. Organized by United+ and Democratic Progressive Caucus Inc., attendees will meet at the south corner of Southern Boulevard and South Flagler Drive at 7:30 a.m. before walking across the drawbridge to the eastern edge of Bingham Island for a candlelight vigil, said Mark Offerman of Wellington, a longtime local activist who is organizing the demonstration. It is expected to last until 10 p.m. According to a press release, the protest will be centered on a list of demands, including calls to restore due process to the nation's immigration system; invoke of the 25th amendment and commence impeachment proceedings; end what they call Trump's 'illegal' executive orders, pardons and government contracts; and reverse the Trump Administration's cuts to federal agencies such as those that hit the Department of Education. 'We sent out a large call to the public and to this administration that we're not going to stand for this anymore,' Offerman said. 'This isn't right; our civil liberties are being destroyed.' During the protest, organizers will bring out a "Trump Baby" balloon, a large caricature inflatable reminiscent to one that first appeared during a protest in the U.K., according to the news release. The protest will be one among more than 50 protests occurring in Florida as part of a nationwide 'Good Trouble Lives On' day of action. The name of these protests stem from a phrase used by the late U.S. Rep. John Lewis in 2019, when he spoke at the Library of Congress opening exhibition of 'Rosa Parks: In Her Own Words.' Lewis passed away July 17, 2020. In Palm Beach, the day of action also aims to reschedule the planned July 4 protest planned that was cancelled at the last minute by organizers, who said West Palm Beach did not provide a permit for the event. West Palm Beach Police officials cited several reasons, including a lack of available resources, in their email to organizers about the permit denial. Offerman told the Daily News that he had sent in a new permit request for the July 17 demonstration just moments after organizers were notified about the denial. But as of July 15, West Palm Beach had not approved or denied the application. For more information, visit Diego Diaz Lasa is a journalist at the Palm Beach Daily News, part of the USA TODAY Florida Network. You can reach him at dlasa@ This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Daily News: Local organizers plan anti-Trump protest near Mar-a-Lago for July 17
