Peers back call to ban Palestine Action under terror laws
She accused the UK Government of being a 'little bit sneaky' by grouping the organisation in with Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement, which were banned under the same order.
Baroness Jones said Palestine Action's actions were not of the 'same calibre of evil' as the two other groups, noting that the group's blockades on buildings and raids did not represent a 'pattern of serious violence'.
Her motion of "regret", which criticised the inclusion of Palestine Action in the motion, was voted down and the original motion approving the Government's proscription order was passed on the nod.
Home Office minister Lord Hanson of Flint set out the UK Government's reasons for the proscription order to the upper house, outlining the group's history of causing property damage and accused members of committing violent crimes.
Also speaking against the Government motion was Lord Hain, former Northern Ireland secretary, who compared Palestine Action with the suffragettes and Nelson Mandela (below), contrasting their actions with those of 'real terrorists' like Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
A number of other peers, including from the Labour benches, raised concerns about the impact of freedom of speech, because expressing support for the group or wearing clothes with the group's branding can result in a prison sentence.
A person found to be a member of the group or a person who expresses support for it faces a 14-year jail sentence. Someone wearing Palestine Action-branded clothing could face a six-month sentence or a £5000 fine.
Baroness Jones said: "There's a long and noble tradition of the use of direct action by protest movements, that includes the suffragettes.
READ MORE: Former government lawyer to defy Palestine Action ban in Parliament Square protest
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Palestine Action terrorist ban comes into force
It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. READ MORE: RECAP – Palestine Action in court to challenge UK Government's terrorist ban They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. READ MORE: The National set to launch collaboration with Declassified UK Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' READ MORE: More than 600 Gaza killings recorded at aid sites and humanitarian convoys, UN says She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The best fences couldn't keep intruders out, RAF insiders claim
The highest-security fences surrounding Britain's military bases can be broken into within five minutes, Royal Air Force insiders have claimed. Spending 'many millions' to install barbed wire-topped high fences at every base would therefore not materially improve security, they argued. Just weeks after Palestine Action activists broke into RAF Brize Norton, Britain's largest air base, the soon-to-be proscribed group has pledged to raid others in protest against Israel's war in Gaza. The Telegraph has found a number of the RAF's most important bases are susceptible to such attacks, with 'vulnerable' airstrips protected by hedges, wooden fences or nothing at all. Security weaknesses included wooden fences, drystone walls, weakly defended emergency access points and unmanned gate barriers. A mooted future home for the new nuclear-capable F35 fighter jets is kept behind a 5ft-high fence. The Telegraph has chosen not to name the bases visited or to detail precisely where weaknesses are along their perimeters. But the revelations prompted calls for a programme of fence-building to prevent future break-ins. RAF insiders, however, said the best barriers could still be broken into in 'three to five minutes'. 'The bottom line to the defence estate and certainly the RAF estate is that we have big chunks of land in the middle of nowhere, and those big chunks of land have massive perimeters,' one source said. 'Now let's say we did put up – at the cost of many millions of pounds, and I have no idea how much it would cost – 12ft high fencing. 'Heathrow call it three-minute fencing because their security team estimates that a high security fence will only delay somebody with intent and with the right tools for approximately three to five minutes. 'So you can put up as much fencing as you like, but it's not a panacea.' Sources said the Armed Forces could not afford to install 'thousands of miles' of high-security fences and instead had to focus on protecting the 'most sensitive' assets. 'We put security where we think we really need it, where our key most sensitive assets are, and we can't afford to put it everywhere,' one said. 'So let's focus on what the key things are and not on what we don't deem essential. 'Does that mean we don't want bigger fences, more fences and larger ones? No, we do. 'You could probably wander around the Army estate or the Navy estate and you'd find exactly the same things. Because again, the high-sensitive areas will have high security.' The source added: 'So how do you do security? You choose the areas that are most sensitive and that need to be most secure, and then you focus on that.' The Armed Forces also use intelligence, CCTV, electronic sensors, patrols and reaction forces to secure their bases, and measures have been enhanced since the Brize Norton infiltration, they added. A review is currently underway to assess weaknesses and identify improvements, a Ministry of Defence spokesman revealed. They added: 'We take security extremely seriously and operate a multi-layered approach to protect our sites, including fencing, patrols and CCTV monitoring. 'Following the security incident at RAF Brize Norton, we are urgently reviewing security procedures across the Defence estate and have immediately implemented a series of enhanced security measures at all sites. 'After years of hollowing out and underfunding of the Armed Forces, the Strategic Defence Review concluded that we need to invest more in this area, backed by the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
No 10 regrets choice of ‘insipid' new cabinet secretary, sources say
Keir Starmer's No 10 increasingly has 'buyer's remorse' about the new cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, who has only been running the civil service for six months, Downing Street and Whitehall sources have told the Guardian. Wormald, who was the permanent secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care during the Covid pandemic, was chosen by the prime minister from a shortlist of four names. Starmer made his pick in consultation with the head of the civil service and the first civil service commissioner, saying at the time that Wormald 'brings a wealth of experience to this role at a critical moment in the work of change this new government has begun'. However, multiple sources said some people around Starmer were growing to view the choice of Wormald as 'disastrous' for the prospects of radical reform of the civil service and had begun to explore options for how to work around him. One said Wormald was viewed as 'insipid' and prone to wringing his hands about problems rather than coming up with solutions, and too entrenched in the status quo. The Spectator reported on Thursday that Starmer had picked Wormald despite others being looked on more favourably by the expert panel that had shortlisted the candidates. It quoted a cabinet minister as saying: 'If you want to do drastic reform of the state, you don't appoint someone whose grandfather and father were both civil servants.' It is understood the panel did not rank the candidates, so there was no preferred choice, but gave four 'appointable' names who would do the job well and assessments of each one. The shortlist of four also included Antonia Romeo, now permanent secretary at the Home Office, Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office permanent secretary, and Tamara Finkelstein, the permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A government spokesperson said: 'The appointment decision was made in line with the usual procedures for appointing permanent secretaries. Under this process, a panel proposes a shortlist of appointable candidates for a final decision by the prime minister. 'The cabinet secretary is leading the work to rewire the way government operates, driving efficiency and reducing bureaucracy as part of prime minister's plan for change to renew our country.' The doubts about the choice of Wormald as cabinet secretary are not new but it has been a difficult few weeks for Starmer on domestic policy, with questions over why he became distracted by foreign affairs and missed the implications of a looming rebellion on welfare cuts. The cabinet secretary is the prime minister's most senior policy adviser and also responsible for running the civil service. In the past, prime ministers have attempted to solve problems with how No 10 and the government is run by splitting the role into a cabinet secretary, a Cabinet Office permanent secretary and a separate head of the civil service, as happened under David Cameron. These were merged back into a single cabinet secretary in 2014 after a three-year experiment in dividing power. The Times reported in April that No 10 was considering greater changes to the machinery of government to create more executive power at the centre, with fewer procedural demands on officials' time, a higher bar for public inquiries, and a civil service that better reflects Britain's class diversity. On his appointment, Wormald told civil servants they would have to 'do things differently' and promised a 'rewiring of the way the government works'. His position is likely to come under further scrutiny when the next stage of Covid inquiry reports are published in the autumn on core political and administrative decision-making. The first report found there had been 'a lack of adequate leadership' in Britain's pandemic preparation, saying the civil service and governments 'failed their citizens'.
