The Home Secretary’s Stance on the Proscription of Palestine Action
The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has reaffirmed her position on the designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist group, stating that it is far more than just “a regular protest group known for occasional stunts.” In an article published in the Observer, she highlighted that the group has taken responsibility for incidents where those involved were later charged with crimes such as violent disorder and aggravated burglary. According to Cooper, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has determined that these charges have a “terrorism connection.”
This statement follows recent actions by the Metropolitan Police, which announced that an additional 60 individuals would be prosecuted for showing support for Palestine Action. Since the group was banned by the government on July 5, over 700 people have been arrested, including more than 500 during a demonstration in central London last week. On Saturday, Norfolk Police arrested 13 individuals accused of supporting the group after a protest in Norwich city centre.
The Met has indicated that further prosecutions are expected in the coming weeks, with arrangements in place to investigate and prosecute significant numbers each week if necessary. Palestine Action has primarily targeted arms companies since the onset of the current conflict in Gaza. Cooper took action to ban the group after activists caused an estimated £7 million in damage to jets at RAF Brize Norton in June.
While many are aware of this incident, Cooper emphasized that fewer people are familiar with other incidents attributed to the group. She also referenced an “Underground Manual” from the group, which she claimed encourages the formation of cells, provides guidance on identifying targets, and outlines methods to evade law enforcement. “These are not the actions of a legitimate protest group,” Cooper stated.
In a previous comment made to Viral In Media earlier this week, Cooper reiterated that some supporters of Palestine Action, driven by concern for the humanitarian situation in Gaza, may not fully understand the group’s true nature. “No one should allow desperate calls for peace in the Middle East to be derailed into a campaign to support one narrow group involved in violence here in the UK,” she said.
The government’s decision to ban Palestine Action makes membership or support for the group a criminal offense, carrying a potential sentence of up to 14 years. Last month, the group was granted permission to challenge the ban, and its case will be heard in the High Court in November. The group argues that the ban violates the right to free speech and suppresses legitimate protest.
Human rights organizations have criticized both the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist group and the subsequent arrests of hundreds of individuals. Amnesty International’s chief executive, Sacha Deshmukh, recently expressed concerns that the response to last weekend’s protest was disproportionate. He stated, “We have long criticized UK terrorism law for being excessively broad and vaguely worded and a threat to freedom of expression. These arrests demonstrate that our concerns were justified.”
The UK is not one of Israel’s primary suppliers of arms but does provide certain components for the F-35 jet, a state-of-the-art multi-role fighter used extensively by Israel in strikes against Gaza. Additionally, the Royal Air Force has conducted hundreds of surveillance flights over Gaza since December 2023, using Shadow R1 spy planes based at an RAF facility in Akrotiri, Cyprus. However, the foreign secretary has maintained that these flights have not resulted in the sharing of military intelligence with the Israeli military.
As the legal battle over the ban continues, questions remain about the future of Palestine Action and the implications of its proscription. The group’s supporters argue that they are defending the rights of Palestinians, while the government maintains that the group poses a threat to public safety and national security. The outcome of the High Court case could have significant repercussions for how such groups are treated under UK law.