Huda Ammori.<\/span> Photograph: Abdullah Bailey\/Alamy<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nHuda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, who brought the high court challenge, called it a \u201cmonumental victory\u201d. She said: \u201cWe were banned because Palestine Action\u2019s disruption of Israel\u2019s largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, cost the corporation millions of pounds in profits and to lose out on multibillion-pound contracts.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ve used the same tactics as direct action organisations throughout history, including anti-war groups Keir Starmer defended in court, and the government acknowledged in these legal proceedings that this ban was based on property damage, not violence against people.<\/p>\n
\u201cBanning Palestine Action was always about appeasing pro-Israel lobby groups and weapons manufacturers, and nothing to do with terrorism \u2026 Today\u2019s landmark ruling is a victory for freedom for all, and I urge the government to respect the court\u2019s decision and bring this injustice to an end without further delay.\u201d<\/p>\n
The judgment is the first time that an organisation banned under anti-terrorism law has successfully challenged proscription in court.<\/p>\n
The judges allowed the challenge on two of four grounds. They were that there was \u201ca very significant interference\u201d with the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and that Cooper\u2019s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was not consistent with her own policy, which required her to take into account factors including the nature and scale of the organisation\u2019s activities, and the specific threat that it posed to the UK.<\/p>\n
Sharp described Palestine Action as an organisation \u201cthat promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality\u201d, but added: \u201cThe court considered that the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate. A very small number of Palestine Action\u2019s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 act.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor these, and for Palestine Action\u2019s other criminal activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature and scale of Palestine Action\u2019s activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.\u201d<\/p>\n
About 100 people \u200bwho had gathered outside the \u200bhigh \u200bcourt building in central London cheered and chanted \u201cfree Palestine\u201d when they heard the decision.<\/p>\nProtesters outside the Royal Courts of Justice following the verdict. <\/span> Photograph: Tolga Akmen\/EPA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, Ben Saul, Amnesty International UK and Liberty, who all intervened in the case, called for Mahmood to respect the court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n
Saul said accepting the judgment \u201cwill enable the relevant authorities to take no further action against those who legitimately expressed their beliefs about Israel and Palestine since 5 July 2025 and were caught up in the policing of the unlawful ban; and also, to apologise to those affected for stigmatising them as terrorists\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Green party leader, Zack Polanski, said: \u201cIt is time for the government to stop criminalising the people protesting a genocide.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson, Max Wilkinson, said: \u201cPlacing Palestine Action in the same legal category as Isis was disproportionate.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, supported the government\u2019s decision to appeal because \u201cthere can be no hesitation when public safety and national security are at stake\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council also threw their support behind an appeal, saying they were \u201cdeeply concerned\u201d by the ruling. \u201cPalestine Action has repeatedly targeted buildings hosting Jewish communal institutions, Jewish-owned businesses, or sites associated with Israel, in ways that cause fear and disruption far beyond the immediate protest sites,\u201d the groups said.<\/p>\n
Palestine Action has always maintained that it targeted companies complicit with Elbit Systems, or otherwise with the oppression of Palestinians, regardless of the owners\u2019 identity.<\/p>\n
Those arrested since proscription \u2013 most of them for holding placards saying \u201cI oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action\u201d \u2013 are accused of offences under section 13 of the Terrorism Act, which carries a maximum sentence of six months in prison. More than 500 of those arrested, who include vicars, pensioners and military veterans, have been charged.<\/p>\n
Showing support for or being a member of a proscribed group is a crime, with offences under section 12 of the act carrying a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.<\/p>\n
Mahmood said on Friday: \u201cI am <\/strong>disappointed by the court\u2019s decision and disagree with the notion that banning this terrorist organisation is disproportionate. The proscription of Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process, endorsed by parliament. The proscription does not prevent peaceful protest in support of the Palestinian cause, another point on which the court agrees.<\/p>\n\u201cAs a former lord chancellor, I have the deepest respect for our judiciary. Home secretaries must, however, retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I intend to fight this judgment in the court of appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Judges have humiliated ministers by insisting Palestine Action should not be banned under anti-terrorism laws in a ruling that has left thousands of its supporters in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2455,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-world-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2454","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2454"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2454\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2455"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}