Palestine Action proscription 'unnecessary', says Gwynedd MP
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said she will proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror law after group activists broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and spray-painted two planes red.
The decision to band the group would affectively brandish it as a terrorist organisation and, if passed in Parliament, would make membership of and support for the group illegal.
Speaking in the Chamber yesterday (June 23), Liz Saville Roberts MP asked if Ms Cooper "recognised the risk implicit in proscribing as terrorist organisations protest groups calling out war".
MORE: Plaid to PM: 'Don't follow Trump into Middle East conflict'
Ms Saville Roberts, Plaid Cymru's Westminster leader, said on behalf of the party: 'Non-violent protest is a cornerstone of any healthy democracy, enabling people to challenge injustice and to hold those in power to account.
"Banning organisations that speak out against war and genocide is a dangerous erosion of our fundamental right to free speech.
"From Greenham Common to the Iraq War, history shows that non-violent direct action has been essential in shaping public discourse and advancing justice.
'Proscribing Palestine Action appears to be a disproportionate and unnecessary move by the UK Government.
"The UK prides itself on protecting freedom of expression but silencing such voices undermines democratic engagement and sets a worrying precedent for other countries across the world.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
7 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Third of renters 'could be forced out by rent hikes' despite landmark reforms
Labour's significant Renters' Rights Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, will ban landlords from evicting renters for no reason from their homes - but fears remain As many as a third of renters could be forced out by rent hikes despite landmark legislation to protect their rights, research shows. Labour 's significant Renters' Rights Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, will ban landlords from evicting renters for no reason from their homes. But despite Section 21 evictions being abolished, campaigners have raised concerns that landlords would still be able to use unfair rent hikes to push people out of their homes. Polling by the Renters Reform Coalition (RRC) has found 34% of renters, and 29% of renters with children, said they would "definitely" be forced to move home by a rent increase of £110 per month. Analysis by the campaign group suggests the average rent increase recommended at first-tier rent tribunals is more than double this at over £240 per month. RRC said the government recognises 'unreasonable rent increases' and had promised to 'empower' renters to challenge them through tribunals. But its polling showed more than half of renters (54%) were unaware that rent tribunals exist and only 14% said they were 'very likely' to use one to challenge a rent increase in future - even after the government has made changes to improve the process. The RRC is calling on the government to introduce a cap on in-tenancy rent increases so renters can remain in their homes. The Renters' Rights Bill is in its final stages of the House of Lords and so is due to become law soon. Peers have attempted to amend the legislation to limit rent increases. Tom Darling, Director at the RRC, praised the 'long overdue' Bill to improve renters' rights but said 'the rent rise eviction loophole is a serious gap in the legislation'. 'Even after section 21 is abolished, our research suggests as many as a third of renters will still face being pushed out of their homes and communities by rent increases, and landlords will be able to use rent hikes they know tenants cannot afford to threaten or intimidate,' he said. "The government's proposed solution will not address this - our analysis shows rent tribunals will do nothing to protect the large proportion of renters who already cannot afford average market rents, even if they were willing to take their landlord to a tribunal in the first place.' A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesman said: 'Our landmark Renters' Rights Bill will ensure that landlords are only be able to increase rents once a year to the market rate, and tenants will be able to challenge unreasonable rent increases through the First-tier Tribunal. 'This will prevent unscrupulous landlords using rent increases as a backdoor means of eviction, while ensuring rents can be increased to a fair rate.' The Government has been clear it does not support rent caps. Officials say heavy-handed controls tend to mean higher rents at the start of a tenancy. It was also highlighted that MHCLG secured a £39billion investment for affordable housing at the Spending Review. ::: The RRC commissioned polling from More in Common, who surveyed 1,076 private renters through three separate polls between April 25 - May 5.
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
As a visibly physically disabled MP, my view on the welfare bill is clear: we need a reset and fast
In March 2020, when the Conservative government looked like an outlier in appearing to pursue a Covid strategy centring on herd immunity, for the first time in my life I felt raw, hot fear. Thinking of my toddler and what might happen if I caught coronavirus and was treated under the then Nice guidelines 'frailty' score was too much. I sobbed deeply. After 10 years of austerity, I knew then that disabled people would pay an enormous price for the pandemic thanks to the government's handling of it. Disabled people did: almost 60% of Covid-related deaths involved disabled people in that first wave. I vowed then that I would do all I could to use my skills and experiences of 20 years working in disability law and policy to deliver a country that treats disabled people with dignity and respect. Five years later, I am one of the only visibly physically disabled members of parliament. I was proud to be elected last year as the first person to have grown up in my constituency to go on to represent it in parliament for more than a century. I am proud, too, that Labour's manifesto committed to championing the rights of disabled people, and to the principle of working with disabled people to ensure our views and voices are at the heart of all we do. Consequently, since April, I have been engaging relentlessly with government, at the very highest level, to change its proposals as set out in the universal credit and personal independence payment bill. I made it clear from the start I could not support the proposals on personal independence payments (Pip). Pip is an in-work benefit, designed to ensure disabled people can live independently. There are 4 million disabled people in poverty in the UK. As a matter of conscience, I could not support measures that would push 250,000 disabled people, including 50,000 children, into poverty. Nor could I accept proposals that used a points system, under current descriptors, that would exclude eligibility for those who cannot put on their underwear, prosthetic limbs or shoes without support. The concessions now announced are significant, including that all recipients of Pip who currently receive it will continue to do so. I know this will be an enormous relief for many of my nearly 6,000 constituents in receipt of Pip and for disabled people across the country. However, I will continue working, as I have done from the beginning, to look at these concessions carefully against the evidence on the impact upon disabled people, including my constituents, and disabled people's organisations. Fundamentally, I will be looking for further reassurances that the detail will fulfil Labour's manifesto commitments to disabled people. The social model of disability must be central to this – removing barriers to our inclusion in society. Proposals must take a mission-led approach across all five missions to break down barriers to opportunity for disabled people. I hope to see three things from government, embedded in the text of the amendments, if the bill reaches the report stage. First, the review being led by Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, must not be performative. The government must not make the same mistake twice. I strongly recommend bringing in a disabled expert on equality and employment law, such as Prof Anna Lawson at the University of Leeds, to support this work. Second, the government must consult disabled people over the summer to understand the impact of the proposed changes from November 2026 on future claimants. These must mitigate risks of discrimination for those current recipients with similar disabilities and against pushing new disabled claimants into poverty after November 2026. In doing so, it must produce an impact assessment that also reflects the impact of unmet need for future recipients on health and social care services, and clarifies the application of new criteria on those receiving Pip if they get reassessed. Third, growth must mean inclusive growth. In implementing the £1bn employment, health and skills support programme, there needs to be a clear target for closing the disability employment gap. Importantly, there needs to be a commitment to a sector-by-sector strategy on closing this gap and a skills training strategy for the employment support workers enabling disabled people into work. These approaches outperform cuts or sanctions in getting disabled people into sustainable employment. This matters. The Conservatives left us with a pitiful 29% employment gap and 17% pay gap for disabled people. The Labour government has an opportunity to bring in a new era of policymaking for disabled people that takes a laser focus in closing this gap. The disability sector believes that this can be reduced by 14%; generating £17.2bn for the exchequer. We must seize this moment to do things differently and move beyond the damaging rhetoric and disagreements of recent weeks. In line with the prime minister's statement that reform should be implemented with Labour values of fairness, a reset requires a shift of emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential. I will continue to engage with government and disabled people's organisations, to fight for a country that treats disabled people with dignity and respect. Marie Tidball is Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism and co-chair of the disability parliamentary Labour party Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The National
9 hours ago
- The National
Palestine Action documentary brought forward due to ban
The online release of To Kill a War Machine was brought forward to this week after it emerged that the Home Office is going to proscribe Palestine Action after activists from the group broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and spray-painted two military planes red. Days after the incident, the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, said the 'disgraceful attack' was 'the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action'. A draft of a proscription order against Palestine Action will be presented to parliament on Monday. READ MORE: Met police drops second terror charge against Kneecap The ban under terror laws would make it a criminal offence to belong to or support the group and would be punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The film's directors have been scrambling to take legal advice and fear they will end up being in breach of counter-terror laws if they continue distributing their documentary, according to the Guardian. Showings of the film have been lined up across Britain in the coming days and weeks but plans to ban the group have cast doubt over whether the screenings can go ahead. To Kill a War Machine was made available to watch online on Tuesday and has been downloaded by people from all over the world. However, its London-based directors, Hannan Majid and Richard York, are concerned that Britain could end up being the only place in the world where people would not be able to see the film. 'We've operated around the world and have a lot of experience of regimes telling us what we can and can't do,' Majid told the Guardian. 'We've had authorities in Bangladesh telling us we shouldn't even be editing footage of garment workers and activists advocating for their rights, and we've been followed by the police in Cambodia, but we have never encountered anything like this in Britain.' Majid has been working with York since 2006 through their production company, Rainbow Collective, which focuses on documentaries about human rights issues and have collaborated with organisations including Amnesty International. To Kill a War Machine took six months of work and was made independently by the filmmakers from Palestine Action. The documentary uses real-time bodycam and phone footage that the group had put into the public domain. In the film, activists are seen smashing and occupying weapons factories across the UK while explaining their motivation for their actions, which they view as legitimate in the face of alleged war crimes in Gaza. (Image: @IMDmilo) There are also interviews with two activists from Palestine Action, Sohail Sultan and Joe Irving, both of whom were acquitted of charges of causing criminal damage. However, the move by the UK Government to proscribe Palestine Action means there are now questions looming over whether the documentary and events, including a London premiere on July 18, can be continued after the group is banned. 'We set out to make this film in a completely legitimate and legal manner, as we have done with other films. It's been certified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) and it is good to go but now we are being advised that the curtailing of Palestine Action could have a major knock-on effect for us as it could become not only illegal for others to voice support for them but also for us, as film-makers, to distribute this film,' said York. Majid added: 'People are still excited and there has been a tremendous outpouring of support on social media. 'Hopefully we can still go ahead with much of our plans, but we have had to rush things forward and do the digital release this week rather than waiting for September and try to build on the awards we have already picked up. 'That all changed on Monday night and there has been a spike as soon as we put it online.' The filmmakers are having discussions with distributors in the UK and the US about the potential risks of showing the film. 'On the basis of some of our legal advice, we may not even be able to distribute it in other countries and territories if the film is seen as being somehow in support of a group which is proscribed. We are still hoping to be able to show it in cinemas within the law,' said York. They are also considering whether they will have to withdraw submissions for a range of international film festivals.
