Palestine Action can challenge UK ban, court rules
Court documents, disclosed to the BBC, reveal how officials and ministers deliberated for at least eight months over whether to ban Palestine Action under terrorism legislation.The UK's terrorism laws focus on banning groups that use serious violence to further a cause. But the definition also allows ministers to outlaw organisations that cause serious criminal damage. Palestine Action is the first group to be proscribed under that part of the definition.Since the group's launch in July 2020, Palestine Action Group (PAG) has carried out more than 385 direct actions against firms it links to Israel's military, leading to more than 676 arrests.Since last month's ban, police have made at least 200 more arrests of people suspected of taking part in protests in support of the group.The cross-government debate over a ban began in earnest last November after an assessment of the damage that PAG members had been accused of causing during a break-in at Elbit Systems, an Israeli defence firm, in Bristol the previous August.
Eighteen people have been charged in relation to that incident, which includes allegations of assaults on a security guard and two police officers.The individuals have all denied wrongdoing and trials start later this year.Government papers in the legal challenge, brought by Huda Ammori, Palestine Action's co-founder, reveal police chiefs told the Home Office the network's activity was "unaffected" by ordinary criminal investigations."Operationally, existing legislation is seen as insufficient to address high-level offences, which meet the definition of terrorism," officials wrote in March."There is currently no existing legislation to deal with [PAG] holistically, meaning the network can only be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in response to isolated incidents of direct action."From the perspective of regional police forces, it is argued that this fractured case-by-case approach has proven operationally ineffective, considerably limiting preventative and disruptive opportunities."The police argued banning PAG would help prevent crime - but they also warned that it could look like "state repression" and the use of "draconian counter-terrorism legislation".
That fear was partly echoed by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) in the advice it sent to Home Office counterparts.Officials there said a ban would be read by some international partners as a stand against antisemitism, but added: "Acting in this way may be interpreted as an overreaction by the UK."Palestine Action's activity is largely viewed by international partners as activism and not extremism or terrorism."They advised that Palestinians themselves and Arab states could regard banning PAG as an attempt to shut down activism - and a Home Office analysis of potential tensions in the UK also highlighted risks."Proscribing PA would almost certainly be perceived as evidence of bias against the British Muslim community in favour of British Jews and Israel more broadly," wrote officials in one of the documents disclosed in the case."[Proscripton] is likely to generate significant discontent and could introduce new social cohesion challenges."By the end of March, papers show that Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was considering banning the group - but had raised a series of questions.The papers indicate she consulted other ministers during May - and finally decided to ban the group after the 20 June break-in to RAF Brize Norton, which the Ministry of Defence estimates caused £7m of damage to two jets.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Government defends Online Safety Act after X claims it threatens free speech
The Government has defended the Online Safety Act after Elon Musk's X said the legislation was threatening free speech. In a post titled What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach, the platform, formerly known as Twitter, outlined criticism of the act and the 'heavy-handed' UK regulators. The Government countered that it is 'demonstrably false' that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech and said it is not designed to censor political debate. Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. This includes a new duty for online providers to reduce the risk that users encounter illegal content as well as age verification measures in the UK to access pornographic content. 'As a result, the act's laudable intentions are at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. Without a more balanced, collaborative approach, free speech will suffer,' X said. It accused regulators of taking a 'heavy-handed approach' and said that 'many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression'. Ofcom said this week it had launched investigations into 34 pornography sites for new age-check requirements. The company said 'a balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children'. A Government spokesperson said: 'It is demonstrably false that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. 'As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression. Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties, including fines of up to 10% of global revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. 'The Act is not designed to censor political debate and does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children such as pornography or suicide and self-harm content. 'Platforms have had several months to prepare for this law. It is a disservice to their users to hide behind deadlines as an excuse for failing to properly implement it.' Technology Secretary Peter Kyle became embroiled in a row with Nigel Farage earlier this week over Reform UK's pledge that it would scrap the Act if the party came into power. He said the Reform UK leader of being on the side of 'extreme pornographers'.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Increased police presence' at asylum hotel protest
A protest against the use of a hotel to accommodate asylum seekers will see an 'increased police presence', the Metropolitan Police has said. The force has imposed conditions on a protest and counter protest outside the Thistle City Barbican Hotel in Islington, north London, on Saturday. A protest and counter protest will also take place in Newcastle outside The New Bridge Hotel on Saturday. The Metropolitan Police said the protest against the use of the Islington hotel was organised by local residents under the banner 'Thistle Barbican needs to go – locals say no'. A counter protest, organised by Stand Up To Racism and supported by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, as well as other groups including Finsbury Park Mosque and Islington Labour Party, will also take place. Police said the anti-asylum hotel protest had been 'endorsed by groups from outside the local community which is likely to increase the number of people attending'. Online groups that have voiced support for the protest include 'Patriots of Britain' and 'Together for the Children'. The Metropolitan Police said plans were in place to 'respond to any protest activity in the vicinity of other hotels in London being used to accommodate asylum seekers'. Conditions on the anti-asylum hotel protest include that anyone participating must remain within King Charles Square and that the assembly must not begin before 1pm and must conclude by 4pm. Police said conditions on the counter protest include that participants must remain in Lever Street, near the junction with Central Street, and that the assembly must not begin before 12pm and must conclude by 4pm. Chief Superintendent Clair Haynes, in charge of the policing operation, said: 'We have been in discussions with the organisers of both protests in recent days, building on the ongoing engagement between local officers, community groups and partners. 'We understand that there are strongly held views on all sides. 'Our officers will police without fear or favour, ensuring those exercising their right to protest can do so safely but intervening at the first sign of actions that cross the line into criminality. 'We have used our powers under the Public Order Act to put conditions in place to prevent serious disorder and to minimise serious disruption to the lives of people and businesses in the local community. 'Those conditions identify two distinct protest areas where the protests must take place, meaning the groups will be separated but still within sight and sound of each other.' There are also posts online advertising a 'for our children, for our future' protest in Newcastle on Saturday outside The New Bridge Hotel. A 'stop the far right and fascists in Newcastle' counter protest has been organised by Stand Up To Racism at the nearby Laing Art Gallery. In a statement, the organisers of the counter protest said: 'Yet again far-right and fascist thugs are intent on bringing their message of hate to Newcastle. They aim to build on years of Islamophobia, anti-migrant sentiment and scapegoating. 'In Epping and elsewhere recently we have already seen intimidation and violence aimed at refugees, migrants and asylum seekers. 'Newcastle, like the rest of the North East, has a well-earned reputation for unity in the face of those who seek to divide us. Whatever problems we face, racism and division are not the answer.'
BBC News
27 minutes ago
- BBC News
'Reckless' behaviour at Plymouth harbour 'risking lives'
A warning has been issued about reckless and anti-social behaviour around a waterfront, which is said to be risking weather and the start of the summer holidays had led to people taking part in potentially life-altering or fatal activities, Plymouth Harbour Authorities Liaison Committee people jumping off harbour walls - known as tombstoning - swimming in prohibited areas and vandalising life-saving equipment has increased, the committee added.A spokesperson said tombstoning could seem fun until "an accident happens". They warned it was "extremely dangerous and costs lives". The activity can lead to cold water shock, being swept away by strong currents and injury due to lower-than-expected water committee said 20 people had died from tombstoning since 2004 and a further 70 were injured. The youngest person injured was 12, they added, while the oldest was 45. "Don't jump into the unknown," the committee spokesperson Downer, interim CEO of Plymouth Waterfront Partnership, said a small minority of people were damaging visitors' impressions of the waterfront through anti-social and dangerous said business had also been impacted, adding: "No one should have to feel unsafe in their workplace [because of people who were] determined to cause trouble."
