logo
‘It's a complete assault on free speech': how Palestine Action was targeted for proscription as terrorists

‘It's a complete assault on free speech': how Palestine Action was targeted for proscription as terrorists

The Guardian5 hours ago

If this interview had taken place in a week's time, Huda Ammori might have been arrested. If this interview had been published in a week's time, the Guardian might also have been breaking the law.
Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, said she was finding it 'very hard to absorb the reality of what's happening here'. She said: 'I don't have a single conviction but if this goes through I would have co-founded what will be a terrorist organisation.'
By 'this' she means the UK government's hugely controversial proposal to ban Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws, placing it alongside the likes of Islamic State and National Action – the first time a direct action group would be classified in this way.
If the group is proscribed next week, as is expected, being a member of or inviting support for Palestine Action will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years. Wearing clothing or publishing a logo that arouses reasonable suspicion that someone supports Palestine Action will carry a sentence of up to six months.
As far as the government is concerned – and campaign groups that have been lobbying ministers – Palestine Action deserves it. This week Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, decried its 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage' and claimed: 'Its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence.'
Beyond the claim and counter-claim, the debate over the decision to ban Palestine Action is as much about free speech and the use of counter-terrorism laws to stop protests.
If Ammori is concerned for herself, she does not show it. In an exclusive interview, she said: 'Obviously people in Palestine Action understand the severity of what's happening and there's a sense of frustration, but there's also a lot of unity in terms of wanting to fight this and not crumble to pressure.
'I think they're completely shooting themselves in the foot if they do this – they are completely delegitimising their own laws, which I think are already quite illegitimate, but in the sense that there have been thousands of people who've come out on the streets, so many people on social media, people in the media etc who've come out in support. I can't think of any precedent for that, where a group is facing proscription and there's an outpouring of support from the general public. I think that says enough about whether or not we should be labelled terrorists.'
Cooper announced the proscription plan on Monday, three days after Palestine Action broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and sprayed paint into the jet engines of two military aircraft that it claimed were helping to refuel US and Israeli fighter jets. It was a deeply embarrassing security breach at a time when the government is trying to bolster its defence credentials.
It was a far cry from when Palestine Action started out in 2020. Ammori said they had so little funds that they would go to actions carrying supplies in plastic carrier bags and make stencils out of cardboard.
The 31-year-old said her activism was piqued by volunteering with refugees in Greece while she was at university. Many of them were from Palestine and Iraq, where her father and mother respectively are originally from, and she realised 'you have to tackle the root cause of these issues'.
She later worked for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign on boycott and divestment campaigns and lobbying MPs, but she left after two years after feeling as if 'you're constantly banging your head against a brick wall, you're constantly trying to reason with people, with the facts, and what you get back is nothing and the complicity continues'.
Ammori then joined up with others who had carried out direct actions (as she had done in 2017) against the Israeli arms manufacturer subsidiary Elbit Systems UK, to form Palestine Action 'with the aim of ending British complicity with the colonisation of Palestine'.
She estimates the group has carried out hundreds of actions, occupying buildings, spraying red paint and destroying equipment, taking video footage to share on social media, going from 'strength to strength'.
As its activities have increased since Israel began its assault on Gaza after the 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas, so has pressure on the government to clamp down on the group, even though its activists are already routinely arrested and charged under existing laws for offences such as criminal damage, violent disorder and burglary.
Cooper said they had caused millions of pounds of damage during a 'nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms'.
Ammori believes part of the reason for proscription is that Palestine Action activists have regularly been acquitted, and where convicted jail time has been rare, although she estimates that dozens have spent time in prison while awaiting trial.
'They've tried to do a few different things to try and deter us, from making it harder to rely on legal defences or increasing use of remand, or they raid you a lot more and then put more severe charges on you,' she said. 'It hasn't [deterred us] so now they're hugely overreaching because they don't like us or agree with our cause.'
She cites activists previously cleared by courts for actions against UK military bases trying to stop war crimes in Iraq, East Timor and Yemen, 'but as soon as it's done for Palestine that's it, you're branded as a terrorist. It's terrifying for everyone that Britain thinks it's appropriate to call to label this a terrorist organisation. The counter-terrorism laws in Britain are so extreme – it's one of the only countries, the only country, where it's actually an offence to recklessly show support for a proscribed organisation. So it's a complete assault on free speech.'
She also points out that none of the overseas chapters of Palestine Action – unaffiliated to but inspired by the UK group – have been banned as terrorists.
Ammori believes the Conservatives would not have resorted to proscription, as they had ample opportunity to do so while in government, and it is only under Labour that activists have been arrested – but not charged so far – under the Terrorism Act, which allows for them to be held without a charging decision for 14 days.
'[Ministers] have gone off the back of what pro-Israel lobby groups have said about us, from probably Elbit Systems and the Israeli government over the years as well, rather than do any factchecking,' she said. 'It's just completely rushed and done for political agenda, and without any consultation with us.'
Freedom of information requests have shown that the UK government has separately met Elbit and Israeli embassy officials, although documents have been heavily redacted so that details are scarce. A 2022 briefing note for the then home secretary, Priti Patel, before a meeting with Elbit had a section titled 'Past lobbying' but all details had been redacted. When asked previously about the document, Elbit did not comment. It did not respond to a request to comment on the matters raised in this article.
Elements of Cooper's ministerial statement mirrored claims made by We Believe in Israel in a report published this month calling for Palestine Action to be banned – namely references to activists targeting infrastructure supporting Ukraine, Nato and Jewish-owned businesses and universities.
Ammori insisted Palestine Action targeted 'all companies who work with Elbit Systems, regardless of the owners identity.'
The We Believe in Israel report also said the group had been investigated in 2022 for links to Hamas-aligned networks abroad, citing a 'classified Metropolitan police briefing', although no charges resulted. It did not say how or why it had seen the briefing, but it reinforced Ammori's fears about UK government and law enforcement being swayed by external forces.
A week ago, We Believe in Israel tweeted: 'Behind Palestine Action's theatre of resistance stands a darker puppeteer: the [Iranian] Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.' The only evidence it provided was that the IRGC's vocabulary 'echoes in Palestine Action's slogans'.
Two days later, the Times was briefed by anonymous Home Office officials that they were investigating whether Palestine Action was funded by Iran, although Cooper did not mention this in her statement.
Ammori rejected the allegation, insisting the group was funded by multiple individuals donating small amounts of cash. As proof, she pointed to a fundraiser for legal fees for the fight against proscription, which by Friday morning had raised more than £150,000, with an average donation of about £35.
She said Palestine Action had shown people 'that you really have a lot of power and that you don't have to accept the fact that when our own government's breaking the law, when these factories are operating building weapons to kill people in Palestine, or weapons that they market as battle-tested on Palestinians and they are openly committing war crimes, that you actually have the power to stop that.
'I think that's something that's captured a lot of people's attention and hearts, and that's why we've gained so much support. People in these areas resonate more with the people on the roof than they do with the company building weapons to massacre people.'
The Home Office was approached for comment.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Calling someone a ‘Karen' is ‘borderline racist, sexist and ageist', tribunal says
Calling someone a ‘Karen' is ‘borderline racist, sexist and ageist', tribunal says

The Guardian

time40 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Calling someone a ‘Karen' is ‘borderline racist, sexist and ageist', tribunal says

Calling someone a 'Karen' is 'borderline racist, sexist and ageist', a tribunal judge has said. Employment judge George Alliott said the term, typically targeted at middle-aged white women, was pejorative. The remarks came in the case of Sylvia Constance, 74, who had brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct race and age discrimination and victimisation against Harpenden Mencap, a charity that provides support to adults with learning disabilities. Constance, who the tribunal heard is black British, said she was targeted because of her race, having been dismissed on 13 June 2023 because of an 'irrevocable breakdown in the relationship' with Mencap. Bosses had previously suspended Constance over claims of 'emotional/psychological abuse of a tenant in your care' and 'bullying and intimidation of colleagues', the tribunal heard. Christine Yates, who represented Constance at the tribunal, said in a document: 'The respondents have acted like the stereotypical 'Karen', having weaponised their privilege and more powerful position against the complainant, making up and suspending the complainant for numerous fictitious infringements, and deflecting from their personal misconduct. 'As egregiously, they encouraged residents under their care to do same. There is also something very sordid about the way in which white, female management have facilitated racism by colluding with white, male residents to give a misogynistic, racist view of the black complainant.' But Alliott said: 'We note Christine Yates uses the slang term 'Karen', which is a pejorative and borderline racist, sexist and ageist term.' The judge dismissed Constance's claims, saying that the complaints against her were 'legitimate' and 'did not constitute a targeted racist campaign against her'.

Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits
Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits

Keir Starmer is battling to stem the revolt over his cuts to disability benefits, with about 50 Labour MPs concerned the new concessions will create a 'two-tier' system where existing and new claimants are treated differently. Senior government sources insisted things were 'moving in the right direction' for No 10, with the whips phoning backbenchers to persuade them to support the bill on Tuesday. Government insiders said they believed they had peeled off enough of the original 120-plus Labour opponents of the legislation to win the vote, after the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, promised to exempt current disability claimants from the changes, and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. However, rebel MPs will attempt to lay a new amendment on Monday giving colleagues a chance to delay the bill, which will still involve £2.5bn of cuts to future disability benefits. The continuing row over the changes is likely to blight the week that will mark the first anniversary of Labour's return to power. In an interview on Thursday, Starmer admitted to a range of mistakes – including using the phrase 'an island of strangers' in an immigration speech, and hiring his former chief of staff Sue Gray. His government has made a series of U-turns in the last 12 months, but his handling of the welfare bill might be the most damaging episode of them all. Starmer will next week be hoping to draw a line under the difficult period, in which the government has also reversed cuts to winter fuel payments and changed course over holding an inquiry into grooming gangs. Dozens of Labour MPs are continuing to criticise the welfare cuts on a Labour WhatsApp group. Many MPs are still undecided about how they will vote and are pressing for more assurances that it is ethical and legal to set up a division between current and future claimants. Disability charities have said the bill remains 'fatally flawed' and will lead to an 'unequal future' for different groups of disabled people, making life harder for hundreds of thousands of future claimants. The government confirmed on Friday night that people who have to make new claims for Pip after November 2026 will be assessed under the new criteria. This means those reapplying after losing their Pip or who have fluctuating health conditions will not have the level of their previous awards protected. Starmer defended the bill on Friday, saying it struck the right balance. The changes will protect 370,000 existing recipients who were expected to lose out after reassessment. The prime minister said: 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right.' Asked how the government would pay for the £3bn of concessions, which experts believe will have to be funded by tax rises or extra borrowing, Starmer replied: 'The funding will be set out in the budget in the usual way, as you'd expect, later in the year.' There would need to be at least 80 rebels to defeat the bill, and government sources were quietly confident they had given enough ground after Meg Hillier, the chair of the Treasury committee, said she would back the legislation following changes. Others were unconvinced. One leading rebel said 'everyone but a handful of people is unhappy', even if they do end up reluctantly backing the changed legislation. Another expressed frustration that No 10 and the whips were 'trying to bounce people into agreeing before we've seen enough details'. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'They are going to have to go back to the negotiating table … deaf and disabled people's organisations are rejecting these changes as it fails to address future need and gives no security for people with fluctuating conditions, for instance where people are in remission.' Other critics who plan to vote against the bill include the MP for Crawley, Peter Lamb, who said: 'Despite many improvements to the system set out in the bill, at its core the bill remains a cost-cutting exercise. No matter the level of involvement of disability groups in co-producing a scheme for new applicants, to save money the new scheme has to result in people with high levels of need losing the support necessary to wash themselves, dress themselves and feed themselves.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Simon Opher, the MP for Stroud, said he still opposed the bill. 'The changes do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip [personal independence payments]. The bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process.' Diane Abbott, a leading figure from the left of Labour, said the rebellion was 'far from over', while another Labour MP said: 'The bill starts from the premise of cuts, not reform. It's also arse about face in terms of impact assessments and co-production. It's simply a negotiated dog's dinner. In that sense, nothing has really changed except the fact they've negotiated more [people to] misguidedly to sign up to it.' One thing Labour MPs are pushing for is more clarity on the review of the Pip system, due to be done before autumn by Stephen Timms, a work and pensions minister. Many expect that process to change the points system from the current proposals. Some in the party also want Starmer to reinstate Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a whip to vote against the bill before the U-turn was made. Stella Creasy, a leading Labour MP who had initially signed the amendment to delay the bill, said she wanted to see more details. 'We need to understand why we would treat one group of claimants differently from another,' she said. A Labour MP from the 2024 intake said: 'I'm waiting to look at the details before making any decisions. Many are in the same place as me and need to get something more than a midnight email on an issue of this much importance to hundreds of thousands of people.' The Labour MPs opposed to the changes are citing a fundamental rejection of the idea that a Labour government will be making disabled people worse off. At the same time, many of them have also been alienated by what they say is a No 10 operation that is out of touch with the parliamentary party, and has tried to strongarm MPs into backing the legislation with threats and promises of preferment. 'Good will has been lost and there is still huge suspicion about whether they will try and pull a stunt at the last minute,' said one Labour MP. The majority of disability charities and campaign groups still opposed the cuts. Ellen Clifford, from Disabled People Against Cuts, said: 'Many people who rely on Pip to survive have fluctuating conditions which means our support needs can go up and down. By penalising existing claimants if we go out of and then go back to the benefits system depending on our health, more people will be denied the support they need. 'This is exactly why no disabled people's organisation across the whole of the UK has welcomed these concessions because we know the complexities of the social security system and bitter experience from years of cuts that there are many ways in which grand sweeping statements about protections translate to very little in practice when you go into the detail of it.' The disability equality charity Scope said that despite the concessions, an estimated 430,000 future disabled claimants would be affected by 2029-30. Its strategy director, James Taylor, said: 'It is encouraging that the government is starting to listen to disabled people and MPs who have been campaigning for change for months. But these plans will still rip billions from the welfare system. 'The proposed concessions will create a two-tier benefits system and an unequal future for disabled people. Life costs more if you are disabled. And these cuts will have a devastating effect on disabled people's health, ability to live independently or work.' Additional reporting by Frances Ryan

Two men charged after Bedford town centre stabbing
Two men charged after Bedford town centre stabbing

BBC News

timean hour ago

  • BBC News

Two men charged after Bedford town centre stabbing

Two men have been charged following a town centre stabbing.A man was injured in Iddesleigh Road, Bedford at about 21:40 BST on 20 men in their 20s have now been charged with grievous bodily harm and one was also charged with possession of a knife or bladed other men, also in their 20s, were arrested in connection with the incident and released on bail. Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store