
Palestine Action spraying paint is not terrorism. As ministers abuse their powers, I feel a duty to speak out
Keir Starmer and his cabinet remain impervious to all calls for humanitarian intervention, and Israel is still killing children in Gaza with the support of the British government.
To proscribe as 'terrorist' a non-violent direct action group such as Palestine Action threatens the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, and of peaceful protest. Surely the government should only ever apply the Terrorism Act with the utmost restraint and precision. Otherwise it allows the state to repress civil liberties that have been dearly fought for and won, and which represent the bedrock of our democracy.
Those civil liberties have already come under real and dangerous threat. The powers given to the police have incrementally increased to an alarming degree, owing in part to the Terrorism Act of 2000 and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022. These have both led to the right of public protest being seriously eroded, and afforded the police much greater powers and significantly less accountability. We have for some time seen these powers being used to suppress lawful protest and to detain peaceful protesters.
In addition, leaving aside its members, the proscription of Palestine Action will directly affect many other activists who are deeply concerned about the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza. Even to be seen to support PA's non-violent direct action will be to risk being criminalised.
The government's response to embarrassing security breaches at RAF bases by Palestine Action seems disproportionate, and highlights, I think, the influence on them of vested interests. There has long been a campaign by senior rightwing politicians, arms company executives and pro-Israel lobby groups to shut down Palestine Action and have it proscribed.
Lockheed Martin UK is a key manufacturer of parts for the F-35 fighter jets that have helped Israel flatten the Gaza Strip, kill more than 56,000 people and create more child amputees per capita than anywhere else in the world. The government ended direct sales to Israel of some weapons, but created an 'F-35 exemption' allowing sales of these parts to continue to reach Israel via the US, where the planes are assembled.
The Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems also operates on UK soil, and our government has lucrative bilateral deals with the company. As far back as 2022 the then home secretary, Priti Patel, held a meeting with Martin Fausset, the CEO of Elbit Systems in the UK, to discuss how to deal with Palestine Action.
The definition of terrorism as laid out in the Terrorism Act of 2000 is clear, and includes 'serious damage to property'. Does spraying red paint on to metal constitute serious damage? The condemnation of this spraying of red paint on to planes as expressed by the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, does not appear to be matched by any equivalent condemnation by her of red blood sprayed on to the tented walls of Gaza.
So yes, crimes concerning damage to property have been committed, but there are already laws in place to deal with them. Labelling these as terrorism only serves to deepen the UK government's complicity in the war crimes being committed in Palestine.
In a further act of desperation, efforts have been made to try to undermine the motives of Palestine Action by making a tenuous link to Iran, with unnamed Home Office sources telling newspapers it is investigating the group's finances.
Smear campaigns such as this are part of a wider policy by government to intimidate and clamp down on dissent.
I have had a small taste of this myself. On 18 January, I attended a rally in Whitehall organised by Stop the War – and noticed immediately that the tactics of the police that day seemed to be markedly different. Present in their thousands, they were already kettling people at the start of the event, and behaving in a manner that seemed aggressive and provocative. The march to the BBC, which had been planned to protest against its coverage of the conflict, had been prohibited by the Met at short notice, and the gathering was confined to Whitehall. I was asked to join a group of about 12 people who would form a symbolic delegation, and request passage through police lines to reach the BBC. There we planned to lay flowers at the door. Reaching the police lines, after some hesitation and resistance, an officer allowed us through. Shortly after that, however, our progress was curtailed by another police line. It was here that I saw at close hand the disproportionate tactics used by police. I witnessed further vanloads of police arriving in the area, kettling peaceful protesters and making numerous arrests – 77 in total that day.
Three weeks later I was sent a letter from the Met threatening me with charges under section 14 of the Public Order Act. I then faced a three-hour police interview, before being told after several weeks (and several thousand pounds of legal fees) that I would face no further action.
Over the past 21 months, I have met many hundreds of people who come out – often travelling long distances – to protest against this genocide. Old people and young, people of every faith, race, generation and ethnic identity. They come in horror at the brutality being inflicted on the population of Gaza. And many of those in our midst are Jewish.
But still we are accused by lobby groups of antisemitism. This I disregard; I am married to a Jewish man, whose mother was a refugee from Hitler's Vienna. She escaped just in time in 1938 as a refugee, and most of her family were subsequently wiped out in the Holocaust. My children define themselves as Jewish, and we have many beloved Jewish friends, all of whom are appalled by the activities of Benjamin Netanyahu, his government and the Israel Defense Forces. These Jewish friends are people driven by compassion, humanity and a sense of right and wrong that will not yield to intimidation. In Gaza, the world is watching the most heinous acts of violence that I have witnessed in my lifetime. It is as if the skin has been ripped off the face of humanity to reveal terrifying depths of sadism and depravity.
I am intensely aware of this thought: I do not want to find myself at the end of my life looking back at this time regretting that I could have done something and didn't – that I was too frightened to speak out, or to act. Palestine Action and its supporters will have no such regrets. Our current British government, however, may well.
Juliet Stevenson is an award-winning actor
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

South Wales Argus
8 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
‘Certain inevitability' to Grangemouth closure when Labour won power
Michael Shanks said the UK Government 'did not take any option off the table' when asked about whether Scotland's last oil refinery could have been nationalised. But he said the plant was 'far too far down the line' for the outcome to have been averted. The plant ceased crude oil processing in April, with its closure causing the loss of 430 jobs. Grangemouth stopped producing oil earlier this year (Andrew Milligan/PA) The SNP had previously called for the UK Government to nationalise the site, which its owners said was losing £385,000 a day. Appearing before the Scottish Affairs Committee in the Commons on Wednesday, Mr Shanks, who is the MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, said the Government is 'not in the business of nationalising failing businesses'. However, he also described Grangemouth currently as a 'hugely investable opportunity' for businesses. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer previously announced £200 million in funding for the future of the site, cash which he hopes to triple in private investment. That came after the Scottish Government had announced £25 million in funding, while both governments funded Project Willow – a £1.5 million report into future options to keep the plant open. We're questioning Energy Minister @MGShanks on the future of North Sea energy as part of our inquiry into GB Energy and the net zero transition. Watch live ⬇️ — Scottish Affairs Committee (@CommonsScotAffs) July 2, 2025 Asked about whether the UK Government considered bringing Grangemouth into public ownership, Mr Shanks told MPs: 'I think it is fair to say we didn't take any option off the table and we did look at a whole series of options. 'But firstly, the Government's not in the business of nationalising failing businesses. 'That is difficult to say, but it is the reality that a business that's losing tens of millions of pounds, it can't be nationalised with the public facing the cost of that. 'That's the same position we're in with the Prax Lindsey refinery (North Lincolnshire), and it's the same position with Grangemouth.' Mr Shanks said Labour 'moved every possible option forward' to do what it could to save the refinery, but added: 'The truth is, we were far too far down the line with the Grangemouth process to really change the outcome and as regrettable as that is, and it genuinely is, and I've met the workers on a number of occasions, I know how significant the impact is on them and their families, there was a certain inevitability about the outcome by the point in which we came into Government.'


The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Labour MP reintroduces bid for Hillsborough Law after campaign stalls
A Labour MP who was at the Hillsborough disaster has renewed the efforts of campaigners to introduce a 'Hillsborough Law' which would aim to prevent cover-ups after major disasters, as he accused the Prime Minister of inaction. Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) was at the disaster aged 16 in 1989, which led to the deaths of 97 football fans during the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at the football ground in Sheffield. The MP introduced a Public Authority (Accountability) Bill centred around a duty of candour which would force public bodies to co-operate with official inquiries and tell the truth after major disasters – or face criminal sanctions. The Government had introduced a similar Bill which was criticised by campaigners and legal experts for not having a legally binding duty of candour. It was pulled over concerns related to who the duty of candour would apply to. Campaigners fear another Bill could be reintroduced that would still be insufficient as it would not be shared with families beforehand. Mr Byrne said: 'Little did I, or anybody there that day, know that we were walking into a national disaster that would leave 97 men, women and children dead, hundreds more injured and countless families devastated for generations. 'What unfolded that day was not a tragic accident. It was a disaster caused by police failures, and compounded by one of the most shameful state cover-ups this country has ever seen.' Sir Keir Starmer was accused by Mr Byrne of breaking a pledge he had made twice on the issue. Labour had said the Bill would be passed before the latest anniversary of the tragedy in April, but that was missed. Mr Byrne said: 'In 2022, Keir Starmer stood before the people of Liverpool at the Labour Party conference and pledged, and I quote, 'One of my first acts as prime minister will be to put the Hillsborough Law on the statue book'. 'He said the same again as Prime Minister in September 2024, not a Hillsborough law, the Hillsborough Law. That pledge filled our hearts with hope, it promised an end to the culture of denial and delay and decades of deceit. And make no mistake, this today is the Hillsborough Law.' Sir Keir was asked about the issue at Prime Minister's Questions, before Mr Byrne spoke in Parliament. Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside Kim Johnson and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey accused the Government of planning to table a 'watered-down' Bill. The Prime Minister said he had been speaking to families personally about what would come forward. 'This is a really serious issue, it is important that we get it right,' he said. 'I am fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough Law, including a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal sanctions for those that refuse to comply. 'We will bring this forward, I just want to take the time to get it right and then put it before the House.' Mr Byrne's father was in the public gallery to see his son's Bill presented, alongside fellow campaigners for a Hillsborough law. He was seriously injured in the disaster and had to crowdfund in pubs near Anfield to raise money for the campaign. His son, who has been an MP in Liverpool since 2019, said: 'The law cannot bring back the 97, it cannot erase the decades of pain, nor undo the trauma inflicted by callous lies and institutional neglect. 'But it can stop this from ever happening again, it can give truth, a fight for justice, and restore some of the faith lost, not just in the system but in the very idea of justice. 'So today can I say loud and clear to the Prime Minister, don't let this moment slip away. Don't let your promise made in Liverpool be broken in Westminster. 'Let us honour the 97 and so many others, not just with remembrance, but with change.'


The Herald Scotland
22 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Dame Meg Hillier backs tearful Chancellor Rachel Reeves
Ms Reeves was visibly tearful in the Commons during a heated Prime Minister's Questions, in which Sir Keir Starmer failed to confirm that she would stay in post until the election. READ MORE It followed the chaos in the Commons on Tuesday night, when a last-minute U-turn on the Government's flagship welfare reforms wiped out £5 billion worth of savings. The speculation about her future had an immediate impact on the financial markets. The pound slid by 1.14% to 1.358 against the US dollar, and fell by 0.8% to 1.155 against the euro, striking its lowest level since April. Meanwhile, the yield on Government bonds jumped amid concerns among investors. During PMQs, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said the chancellor looked 'absolutely miserable' and described her as a 'human shield' for Sir Keir. She pushed Starmer on whether Ms Reeves would be in post at the next election. After he did not directly reply, Ms Badenoch said: 'How awful for the chancellor that he did not confirm she would be in post.' As the Prime Minister answered, Ms Reeves wiped away a tear. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was visibly emotional (Image: UK Parliament) No 10 belatedly threw its weight behind Ms Reeves. Asked why Sir Keir did not confirm in the Commons that he still had faith in the Chancellor, the Prime Minister's press secretary told reporters: 'He has done so repeatedly. 'The Chancellor is going nowhere. She has the Prime Minister's full backing. 'He has said it plenty of times; he doesn't need to repeat it every time the Leader of the Opposition speculates about Labour politicians.' Asked about her tears, a spokesman for Ms Reeves said: 'It's a personal matter which, as you would expect, we are not going to get into. 'The Chancellor will be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.' Reports suggested she had been involved in an altercation with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle shortly before Prime Minister's Questions. READ MORE Asked about the speculation, Dame Meg told The Herald: 'It was a challenging job when she took it on. The hardest jobs in government, I think.' She added: 'I've got great confidence in her. She's taken on a huge job. It was a very difficult hand dealt. 'I think she's taken on this difficult job and is doing a good job in that respect. 'Last night's thrown a big curveball. She's a resilient woman. I'm sure she will find a way, but I'm not going to start predicting her Budget.' Changes to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (PIP) were abandoned on Tuesday just 90 minutes before MPs voted. That prompted speculation that will need to be tax hikes. Earlier in the day, Pat McFadden, told the BBC: "There's definitely a cost to what was announced yesterday, and you can't spend the same money twice, so more money spent on that means less for some other purpose." However, he later told Times Radio that the Government would 'stick to the tax promises we made in the manifesto', effectively ruling out an increase to income tax, employee National Insurance or VAT.