UK campaign group Palestine Action to challenge government ban
The proscription - expected to be laid before parliament on Monday - would make it a criminal offence to belong to the group, and was announced days after its activists damaged two British military planes in protest at London's support for Israel.
Palestine Action previously condemned the government's move, calling it "an unhinged reaction", and said that London's High Court had granted the group an urgent hearing on Friday to consider permission for a legal challenge to the proscription.
The group is seeking a court order to prevent the government from proscribing the group pending its case being heard, Palestine Action said.
It includes written statements from human rights experts at Amnesty International and others that have expressed concerns "about the unlawful misuse of anti-terror measures to criminalise dissent".
"The court's decision to grant an urgent hearing this week is indicative of the vital importance of what is at stake in this case, including the far-reaching implications any proscription of Palestine Action would have on fundamental freedoms of speech, expression and assembly in Britain," co-founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, said.
Under British law, the Home Secretary can proscribe a group if it is believed it commits, encourages or "is otherwise concerned in terrorism". The ban would put Palestine Action on a par with Hamas, al-Qaeda or ISIS under British law.
The Home Office declined to comment on Palestine Action's legal challenge.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper previously said the group had a "long history of unacceptable criminal damage" and that the government would not tolerate those who put national security at risk.
Palestine Action has regularly targeted British sites connected to Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems as well as other companies in Britain linked to Israel since the start of the conflict in Gaza in 2023.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
37 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Former British No.1 tennis player banned from Wimbledon grounds
Former British No.1 tennis player banned from Wimbledon grounds Christopher 'Buster' Mottram was Britain's leading male player in the late 1970s and early 80s, but has been barred from Wimbledon since 2023 following 'misdemeanours' Buster Mottram, pictured during his tennis career, has been banned by Wimbledon (Image: MSI ) A divisive former tennis star has reportedly been excluded from Wimbledon. Christopher Mottram, known widely as 'Buster', was Britain's leading male player in the late 1970s and early 80s as well as representing his country in the Davis Cup. However, he has been barred from SW19 since 2023, fellow former British tennis star Roger Taylor has revealed. Taylor made the claim in his recently-released book, The Man Who Saved Wimbledon, per the Daily Mail's Eden Confidential column. Now 70, Mottram was seen as a controversial figure. He once wrote a letter in support of then-prime minister Margaret Thatcher during her battles with the trade unions in the 80s, even signing it on behalf of the Davis Cup team, which left the tennis authorities fuming. Additionally, he faced allegations of racism due to his backing of Enoch Powell, a far-right politician notorious for his 'Rivers of Blood' speech about mass immigration in the late-60s. Taylor, 83, wrote: "His antics and beliefs saw him frozen out by the establishment. He never became a permanent member of the All England Club which, for player with his record, would usually be guaranteed. In 2023, following further misdemeanours, he was banned from the place altogether." Article continues below Mottram is said to be no longer welcome at SW19 (Image:) When approached for comment, a Wimbledon spokesperson said: "I'm afraid we don't comment on our membership." Mottram has been left feeling despondent by his expulsion, although Taylor attributed the ban primarily to his own conduct. He wrote: "Buster spent more time there than just about anyone else and it's been very sad to watch his decline and exclusion, even if much of it has been down to his own failings." In his heyday, Mottram soared to 15th in the world rankings in 1978 and 1983, with his most notable Wimbledon achievement being reaching the fourth round in 1982. He made it to the fourth round at both the French Open and the US Open as well. He was also a member of the British Davis Cup team that was runner-up to the United States in 1978. A young Mottram in action (Image: Getty ) Mottram abruptly hung up his racket in 1983, blaming the continuous "hassle" of participating in year-round tournaments. He later ventured into right-wing politics but found himself ejected from UKIP for fraternising with the British National Party (BNP) and its leader Nick Griffin. After attempting to broker a pact between UKIP and the BNP, Mottram was ejected from the party, then under Nigel Farage's leadership. Farage said at the time: "There are no circumstances, no possible situations, in which we would even consider doing any type of deal with the BNP whatsoever. "I'm simply amazed that the BNP thought we would even consider such a thing, given that we are a non-racist, non-sectarian party." Article continues below Griffin had entertained hopes of forming an agreement to prevent BNP and UKIP candidates from competing against one another in the forthcoming European elections.
ITV News
40 minutes ago
- ITV News
Hamas 'ready and serious' for ceasefire as Trump says Israel has agreed deal
Hamas has indicated it would be ready to accept a ceasefire agreement with Israel, but stopped short of agreeing to a US-backed offer proposed by US President Donald Trump. Trump said on Tuesday that Israel had agreed to terms for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, during which the US and other parties would work towards an end to the war. On Wednesday Hamas official Taher al-Nunu said the militant group was "ready and serious regarding reaching an agreement." However, he reasserted that any deal with Israel must bring an end to the war in Gaza. He said Hamas was "ready to accept any initiative that clearly leads to the complete end to the war." Trump had earlier pushed Hamas to accept the deal in a social media post. 'I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE,' Trump said. The news comes as Trump prepares to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for talks at the White House on Monday. The US president has shown increased interest in a ceasefire and hostage agreement in the region after the US brokered a peace agreement between Israel and Iran. Asked earlier if it's time to put pressure on Netanyahu to get a ceasefire deal done, Trump said the Israeli prime minister was ready to come to an agreement. 'He wants to,' Trump said, adding: 'I think we'll have a deal next week.' A Hamas delegation is expected to meet with Egyptian and Qatari mediators in Cairo on Wednesday to discuss the proposal, according to an Egyptian official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, because he wasn't authorized to discuss the talks with the media. Talks between Israel and Hamas have repeatedly faltered over whether the war should end as part of any ceasefire agreement. About 50 hostages remain captive in Gaza, with less than half believed to be alive. Hamas says it is willing to free all the hostages in exchange for a full withdrawal of Israeli troops and an end to the war in Gaza. Israel rejects that offer, saying it will agree to end the war if Hamas surrenders, disarms and goes into exile, something that the group refuses. The announcement by Trump came as over 150 international charities and humanitarian groups called Tuesday for disbanding a controversial Israeli- and US-backed system to distribute aid in Gaza because of chaos and deadly violence against Palestinians seeking food at its sites. The joint statement by groups including Oxfam, Save the Children and Amnesty International followed the killings of at least 10 Palestinians who were seeking desperately needed food, witnesses and health officials said. Meanwhile, Israeli airstrikes killed at least 37 in southern Gaza's Khan Younis, according to Nasser Hospital. 'Tents, tents they are hitting with two missiles?' asked Um Seif Abu Leda, whose son was killed in the strikes. Mourners threw flowers on the body bags. Before Trump's announcement, Israel's defence minister, Israel Katz, had warned that his country would respond forcefully to the firing of a missile the military said originated from Yemen. Sirens sounded across parts of Israel, alerting residents to the attack and the launch of two projectiles from Gaza. All were intercepted by Israeli defence systems. The missile launch marked the first attack by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels since the end of the 12-day war initiated by Israel with Iran. Katz said Yemen could face the same fate as Tehran.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Labour has tied itself in knots over welfare reform
The problem with having principles is that they're very expensive. This is proving an enormous headache for Starmer's government, which is still trying to slash disability benefits in plain sight rather than raise taxes, only to be forced into another embarrassing U-turn by hundreds of its own backbenchers. These rebel MPs kicked up a fuss on the basis that they didn't run for office to push hundreds of thousands of disabled people into poverty. Most of these MPs ran for office on the basis of not being Tories. The party leadership apparently believed that it could legislate like Tories and get away with it, but to get away with that sort of flagrant regressive policy, you have to be – well, a Tory. That's the downside of liberalism as a lifestyle choice. You can't just show up with unbrushed hair and a swindler's grin and expect a round of applause. You have to do vulgar things like telling the truth and being accountable to the public. There's nothing inherently embarrassing about changing your mind on the basis of new information – unless the new information is that you haven't a clue what you stand for, and you're out of step with the party and the public. Party insiders are still arguing that Reeves messed up here by not making the moral case for kicking people off benefits. Presumably the reason she didn't make one is because there isn't one – at least not one that the public will believe. The implications, however, are unavoidable: if disability claims are rising, if the benefits bill is ballooning, it must be because poor people are cheating the system. The problem with this implication is that it's wrong – not morally, but factually. An enormous proportion of British people who receive benefits – including disability benefits – are in work, and welfare has long been used to spackle over the fractures in our healthcare and our job market, and to subsidise our broken housing system. And no matter how costly a crutch this might be, you can't cure anyone by kicking it away. It was, in fact, New Labour who really leaned into this practice, just as it was Labour who kicked off a generation of punitive welfare reforms on its way out the door in 2010. There is an ugly, parsimonious impulse to the Labour party when in power, just as there is with any centre-left party trying to line up its historical claims to fairness with its twofold terror of both the markets and the voting public. The parts of the Labour party which pride themselves on their electability have always had a puritan streak, and that tendency has been polished by years in opposition fighting off nonsensical accusations of spendthriftery from Tory governments running the economy on deranged goblin mode. This economic dysphoria is unwarranted, given that the Conservative party will not be trusted to run the economy for a very long time, for the same reason I cannot be trusted to consume Absinthe in a goth club: because of the incident. Fourteen years of swindling, scandal and chaos seem to have marinated the legacy of Labour politicians in the sense that they have become the party of modesty and discipline. This conviction plays into the social darwinism that is particular to the centre-left in power: that welfare must come with deterrents and that requiring state support is a sign of moral weakness. This is a hangover from centuries spent trying to sleep at night inside the racket of a machine that grinds out human misery. Underpinning it all is the conviction that there is something shameful about poverty. That sort of shame runs livid under the skin of the British class system. It's why every effort to actually help those who have been shut out and worn down by the system still has to be buttoned up in appeals of restraint and moral instruction. Labour has long been suspicious of pleasure, of anything that could possibly be seen as self-indulgent – setting itself against the excesses and depravity of the Tory old guard. As principles go, that one's cheap, but like most cheap things, it breaks down just when you need it most. Unfortunately, after gambling away the social democratic settlement, the Tories also gambled away the excuses. Nobody believes that taking away money from sick, poor and disabled people is an acceptable way to pay off the debts the last lot ran up. That's a song the British electorate has been hearing for too long, and we are sick of it. Nor can Reeves plausibly tell the public that we're all in this together, even though she, at least, seems to be shouldering her share of the national misery – unlike, for example, Osborne, who delivered this line while clearly having a fabulous time holding the country upside down to see what shook out of the pockets of the working poor. Reeves has the decency not to look pleased with herself – just as what remains of the Conservative party has had the decency not to show up for these debates.
