Palestine Action should not have been proscribed

Palestine Action is a direct action protest group opposed to the continued manufacture of Israeli arms in Britain, particularly by Elbit Systems. On 2 July 2025 MPs voted in an overwhelming majority to proscribe this group under the Terrorism Act (2000). There is a transcription of the debate in Hansard.

Publishing this article is a serious risk to my liberty; it likely violates the relevant terrorism legislation, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

Dishonesty

Misrepresentation of facts

Several MPs made reference to "attacks on Jewish-owned businesses" and "Jewish charities". Why don't we check some examples rather than relying on easy euphemisms.

Misrepresentation of motivation

MPs claim that "confidential information" convinced them to vote. Obviously I can't vouch for that, because it is secret. But there is no plausible sufficient reason that such grounds should be kept secret.

Misleading association with hate groups

The order was bundled with two other groups, Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. MMC (if the name is not a giveaway) have killed more than 50 people. RIM has a paramilitary arm accused of war crimes, including the rape of children. Both groups are self-avowed Nazis.

Why bundle them together? There was no doubt that any MP would vote against proscribing the two Russian groups. The only plausible reason is that the Home Secretary hoped to tar dissenting MPs as supporting Nazis.

Hypocrisy

Fairford Five

In 2003 a group of five protesters planned a remarkably similar act to that at Brize Norton. They broke into the RAF base at Fairford and attempted to disable planes, so they could not join in with the US/UK war of aggression in Iraq. The Terrorism Act existed at this time, but was not even remotely considered for prosecution, because it was not a terrorist act. They were prosecuted for criminal damage, and were defended by Keir Starmer.

Suffragettes

Poetically, there was a photo commemorating the Suffragettes on the same day as the vote to proscribe. The Suffragettes were far more violent than even the most far-fetched accusations against PA. They conducted a bombing and arson campaign which killed at least four people. Christabel Pankhurst herself described it as a "reign of terror", and Emmeline is quoted as saying their aim was "to make England and every department of English life insecure and unsafe".

The IDF

There are hundreds of IDF enlists in the UK, many of whom have credibly been accused of involvement in war crimes. It is hard to imagine a definition of terrorism that would not include the IDF. They have been documented firing at hospitals, churches, and aid queues. Somehow, the IDF did not make it onto the order paper in this case.

Enforcement and Disproportionality

Sue Parfitt, an 83-year-old priest, was arrested for attending a demonstration against the proscription. She is visibly frail and was hemmed in by multiple officers as she was led away. When confronted about this, Mark Rowley had this to say:

The law doesn't have an age limit, whether you're 18 or 80. If you're supporting proscribed organisations, then the law is going to be enforced. Officers, you could see, did it with great care and tried to preserve that person's dignity, but they're breaking a serious law.

A serious law used for unserious purposes does not remain a serious law. This defence amounts to "just following orders". I am not sure whether Rowley is just unwilling or actually incapable of imagining that the law might be wrong sometimes. What if the proscription is later found to have been unlawful all along? It is not his job to think, only to suppress what he's told to suppress.