Hundreds sign letter opposing ban on Palestine Action, calling it ‘major assault on freedoms'
Palestine Action, known for its direct action protests targeting UK-based Israeli weapons factories and their supply chains, was officially proscribed under anti-terrorism laws earlier this month after a parliamentary vote.
The ban makes it a criminal offence to be a member of or express support for the group. A last-minute legal challenge to halt the proscription was unsuccessful.
'Peaceful protest tactics which damage property or disrupt 'business-as-usual' in order to call attention to the crimes of the powerful have a long and proud history. They are more urgent than ever in response to Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people,' the open letter, which has gathered more than 900 signatures so far, argued.
Among the signatories are singer Charlotte Church and long-time environmental and human rights activist Angie Zelter, who was previously acquitted after disarming a BAE Hawk jet and destroying infrastructure linked to Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system, The Guardian newspaper reported.
Elected representatives also joined the list of supporters, including James Dornan, Scottish National Party MSP for Cathcart, who last week tabled a motion in the Scottish parliament calling for the Israeli military to be designated a terrorist organization.
Glasgow Trades Union Council, which is collectively backing the letter, issued a statement saying: 'As the UK government is attacking our civil liberties, we must ask ourselves if not now, then when?'
Anne Alexander, a University of Cambridge researcher and UCU activist who helped organize the letter, said the response showed widespread opposition to the government's stance.
'The response to this open letter shows that people up and down the country want to stop arms going to Israel and that they don't agree that a direct action group are 'terrorists' because they tried to disrupt the supply chain fuelling a genocide,' she said.
The draft order to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 was put forward by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and passed the House of Commons on July 2 by 385 votes to 26.
The legislation included a ban on two neo-Nazi organisations, the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement.
Some MPs and human rights groups have been critical of the government for the move, suggesting that combining Palestine Action with white supremacist groups in a single motion placed political pressure on MPs to support the measure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Trump to make unprecedented second state visit to UK in September
LONDON: US President Donald Trump will make an unprecedented second state visit to the UK between Sept. 17 and 19 when he will be hosted by King Charles II and Queen Camilla at Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace said Monday. Trump, who is a big supporter of the royal family, particularly of the monarch, will be accompanied by his wife, Melania Trump during the three-day visit, the palace confirmed. No US president has been invited for a second state visit. Trump previously enjoyed the pomp and pageantry of the state visit in 2019 during his first term when he was hosted by Charles' late mother, Queen Elizabeth II. The invitation for the second state visit from the king was hand-delivered by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in February during a meeting at the White House. After reading it, Trump said it was a 'great, great honor' and appeared particularly pleased by the fact he will be staying at Windsor Castle, to the west of the capital. 'That's really something,' he said. Precedent for second-term US presidents who have already made a state visit is usually tea or lunch with the monarch at Windsor Castle, as was the case for George W. Bush and Barack Obama. State visits are ceremonial meetings between heads of state that are used to honor friendly nations and sometimes smooth relations between rivals. While the king formally issues the invitation for a state visit, he does so on the advice of the elected government. The visit is seen as part of Starmer's effort to keep Trump close and lessen the impact of some of his polices on the UK The relationship between the two appears amicable, and has helped the UK from facing the sort of hefty US tariffs that other nations are seeing. But like Trump's previous visit, it's unlikely he will be welcomed by all. Last time, a day of protests saw the flying of a giant blimp depicting Trump as an angry orange baby from outside Parliament. Lawmakers from Starmer's Labour Party have also questioned whether the honor should be extended to Trump at a time that he is supporting Israel's war in Gaza and threatening the sovereignty of allies such as Canada and Greenland. Charles could also face some challenges during the visit because he is head of state of both the United Kingdom and Canada, which Trump has suggested should become the 51st US state. During a speech to the Canadian parliament in May the king highlighted Canada's 'unique identity' and 'sovereignty,' while echoing the words of the country's national anthem when he said 'The True North is indeed strong and free.' State visits to Britain are particularly prized by heads of state because they come with a full complement of royal pomp and circumstance, including military reviews, carriage rides and a glittering state banquet hosted by the monarch. The events normally take place in and around Buckingham Palace in central London. But like last week's state visit from French President Emmanual Macron and his wife Brigitte, the Trumps will stay at Windsor Castle. Buckingham Palace is undergoing extensive remodeling.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Britain launches 500 million pound fund for vulnerable children
MANCHESTER, England: Britain on Sunday announced a 500 million pound ($675 million) fund intended to help up to 200,000 vulnerable children. The Better Futures Fund aims to provide support for struggling families and give children access to better education and a safe home over the next 10 years, the government said. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his finance minister Rachel Reeves are under pressure from their own Labour Party lawmakers to provide more support for low-income families. Earlier this month, Starmer was forced to gut key parts of his welfare reform plan in order to pass legislation through parliament. 'This fund will give hundreds of thousands of children, young people and their families a better chance,' Reeves said in a statement. 'Our 'Plan for Change' will break down barriers to opportunity and give them the best start in life.' The finance ministry said it planned to raise another 500 million pounds from local government, social investors and philanthropists. Mel Stride, finance spokesman for the opposition Conservative Party, said he welcomed the new funding but said Labour's economic policies had hurt struggling families. The government is also considering whether to abolish a two-child limit on welfare payments to parents as it reassesses several unpopular policies to reverse a slide in its poll ratings.
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Arab News
UK's steady, silent decline a worrying echo of the 1970s
In July 2025, the question of whether the UK is in decline no longer feels rhetorical in nature, it feels like resigned recognition of the fact. One year into Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government, the chaos and dysfunction of the Johnson-Truss era of Conservative rule have faded. But so too has momentum. A brittle, overstretched economic model, persistent underinvestment and political caution have combined to leave the country in a state of quiet regression. Britain in 2025 bears an uncomfortable resemblance to that of the 1970s, not in terms of the headlines but in the undercurrents. Back then, the UK faced a decade of stagflation, industrial unrest, a weakening global role and rising domestic disillusionment. The country suffered a brain drain, watched investors flee and relied on an International Monetary Fund bailout to steady its finances. By 1979, it had become, in the words of many commentators, 'the sick man of Europe.' Fast forward to 2025 and economic growth once again remains stagnant, with gross domestic product expected to rise by a mere 1.2 percent. While the IMF is not directly involved this time, the UK's fiscal landscape nevertheless appears increasingly precarious. National debt has soared to 105 percent of GDP, taxes are set to climb further and rising interest costs threaten to outstrip growth over the next five years. Inflation has subsided, yet public services continue to face significant strains. The Labour Party has managed to stabilize political tensions but failed to inspire confidence in its ability to achieve long-term revitalization. Taxation levels have reached historic postwar highs, with threshold freezes subtly shifting middle earners into higher tax brackets. Much like during the 1970s, the middle class feels excessively taxed, inadequately rewarded and uncertain about the future. And so, the similarities between the two eras deepen. In the late 1970s, the middle class, once the engine of postwar prosperity, similarly found itself squeezed between rising prices and falling state performance. Half a century later, the same group is once again under siege. Wages are stagnant in real terms, mortgage payments have surged, rising energy bills are biting deeper into family budgets, and private education and childcare have become luxuries. Homeownership, a once-solid symbol of middle-class stability, is increasingly out of reach. Professional families now live precariously on credit, vulnerable to shocks and increasingly disillusioned with the political class. The outcome of all this? A demographic shift reminiscent of the brain drain witnessed in the 1970s. This decline, driven mainly by reduced work opportunities and study visa allocations, underscores a troubling issue: the UK is losing its upward potential while experiencing a contraction of its talent pool. London, once a magnet for international capital, entrepreneurs and academics, is now seeing its allure dim. Paris, Frankfurt and even Amsterdam are claiming gains in finance and tech. The City of London remains resilient but its future feels encumbered by Brexit, bureaucracy and uncertainty. An exodus from the London Stock Exchange marks a pivotal moment for the UK's financial sector, the Confederation of British Industry has warned. Since 2016, 213 firms have delisted amid a wave of overseas listings, private takeovers and waning investor interest in UK stocks. Since Brexit, exports of UK goods have lagged behind its G7 peers, investment has slowed and regulatory divergence has raised costs, cumulatively undermining business confidence, cross-border trade and the UK's global competitiveness. Meanwhile, both middle-class professionals and high-net-worth individuals have increasingly relocated to Canada, Australia, the UAE, Singapore and the US, driven in part by tax pressures and the erosion of the UK's 'non-dom' regime. It is a quiet exodus reminiscent of the 1970s. Back then, disillusionment sparked radical realignment and Thatcherism eventually swept away the postwar consensus in favor of market liberalism. In 2025, the response is more muted. The Reform UK party is rising on the political right, while Labour governs by managerialism. The country has chosen order over ambition. But stability, on its own, is not prosperity. Even Britain's foreign policy posture echoes the previous decades. The country is active on the war in Ukraine, committed to NATO and respected diplomatically. But its economic weight no longer matches its strategic vocabulary. As in the 1970s, the UK of today retains influence through alliances, not autonomy. London, once a magnet for international capital, entrepreneurs and academics, is now seeing its allure dim. Dr. John Sfakianakis There are differences between the eras, too, of course. Britain in 2025 is more diverse, more peaceful and less industrial than it was in the 1970s. The labor market is more flexible, inflation is less volatile. But the psychological parallels are stark. Now, as then, there exists a pervasive sense that the country is falling behind, that its best days might be behind it and that no political force has yet made a convincing case for how to reverse the slide. Driven more by ideology than evidence, the UK, unlike Germany or Canada, is now one of the few countries to impose a 20 percent value-added tax on private education, a policy that risks placing strain on the state sector without meaningfully reducing inequality. What is striking is not the urgency of the decline, it is its normalization. As it did in the late 1970s, Britain is adjusting to lowered expectations; it still functions but it no longer aspires. And while it continues to avoid collapse, it increasingly tolerates stagnation and mediocrity. The lesson of the 1970s was not just about endurance, it was about transformation. That decade ended with a revolution in Britain's political economy, one that reshaped its state, markets and global role for a generation. In 2025, the question is not whether the UK can survive its decline, it is whether the nation can find the courage to confront it. Britain today has the institutions, human capital and democratic depth to recover. But that recovery will not come from managerial politics or minimal policy. It will require imagination and the willingness to once again ask what kind of country it wants to be. Decline, when it is met with denial, becomes destiny. Acknowledged, it can become a moment of aspiration. That was the lesson of the 1970s. It remains the lesson today. To reverse this present course, Britain will need more than competent administration; it must abandon its reliance on short-term fiscal management and embrace a long-term economic and institutional strategy grounded in investment, productivity and social cohesion. To revitalize the nation, the development of a fresh growth strategy, one that recognizes the difference between stable GDP figures and actual economic vitality, is critical. The stock market alone does not represent the health of the economy. Secondly, comprehensive reform of the tax system is overdue. Threshold freezes and stealth increases have disproportionately hurt the middle and aspiring classes, while failing to restore fiscal strength. Thirdly, the state must regain its strategic capability, not in the form of centralized bureaucracy but in institutional capacity. Fourthly, a radical approach to human capital is essential. From early childhood to lifelong learning, Britain's skills development system is fragmented and underfunded. Finally, a national narrative is needed. For too long, the UK's political class has offered the rhetoric of survival and slogans of heritage, rather than a persuasive account of the future. Britain's institutions remain intact. Its rule of law remains strong. Its people are creative, tolerant and adaptive. But these strengths must be mobilized, through ideas, investment and leadership that transcend the default settings of recent decades. It was once said that Britain 'muddles through' — but muddling has become a strategy, and it is one that can no longer cope with the demands of a complex and shifting world. The 1970s did not mark the end of the UK, they were a turning point. What followed was a redefinition of the state, the market and Britain's place in the world. In 2025, another pivot is required. As Shakespeare warned, the fault lies not in fate but in our own hands. The UK's decline is not preordained, but the result of strategic drift and political timidity.
