As the government moves to ban Palestine Action, are terror laws being used for ‘political policing’?

The home secretary Yvette Cooper is planning to ban Palestine Action as a terror group, and the head of the Metropolitan Police has already said even protesting in support of the group goes beyond “legitimate protest” – but experts say it’s part of a wider trend of government crackdown on free expression.

Cooper confirmed plans to proscribe Palestine Action, making it a crime to join or support the group, punishable by a maximum of 15 years in prison, after members of the group broke into RAF Brize Norton and vandalised planes.

The move has roused opinion. Former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf said the government is abusing anti-terror laws, while novelist Sally Rooney has said she will continue to support Palestine Action “whether that becomes a terrorist offence or not”. 

Read more:

• We took the UK government to court to defend the right to protest – and won. Here’s what it means
• Banning books is not only wrong – it’s absolutely pointless. Here’s why
• The far-right’s resurgence was only a matter of time after Black Lives Matter

Cooper confirmed she would be putting a draft proscription order before parliament next week, a move which would put the group on legal footing alongside al-Qaeda, Isis and Hezbollah.

A group can be proscribed on the basis that its actions involve serious damage to property and are designed to influence the government.

Former justice secretary Lord Charlie Falconer said the base break-in alone likely did not justify Palestine Action being proscribed, “so there must be something else that I don’t know about,” while Labour MP Calvin Bailey said: “What Yvette Cooper is doing is based on the things we don’t see.”

Ahead of protesters massing in central London, rallying against the ban, Met Police commissioner Mark Rowley said he was “shocked and frustrated” the protest was taking place.

“It’s absolutely outrageous,” said Raj Chada, a lawyer who has defended cases including that of the Stansted 15, who were tried with terror offences after breaking into London Stansted Airport to stop a deportation flight. It would be, Chada added, “the first time in history that we are seeking to proscribe a direct action protest group, rather than a group that has been involved in bombings and killings.”

He said: “There will be unintended consequences. We’ve already been contacted by other protest groups asking what the consequences will be for them. There’s potentially a real chilling effect that will apply to protest even more.”

Of Rowley’s comments that “actions in support” of Palestine Action “go beyond what most would see as legitimate protest”, Chada said: “It’s 1984. What people would say previous to this is, if you don’t agree with proscription, then go and protest about it.”

The move came a week after Kneecap rapper Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh had the first court hearing over a terrorism charge for allegedly displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah, a proscribed organisation, and raised concerns over wide application of the act.

“These two uses of the Terrorism Act are both chilling expression that criticises the UK’s support of, or inaction against, Israel’s atrocities,” said Ethan Shattock, a lecturer in law at Queen’s University Belfast.

“It seriously calls into question the credibility of anti-terrorism legislation if they are used to curtail legitimate democratic activism. Moreover, it lends support to the idea expressed by Kneecap that the Terrorism Act is effectively being applied as a means of ‘political policing’. This should cause concern.”

Promises are easy to break. Sign Big Issue’s petition for a Poverty Zero law and help us make tackling poverty a legal requirement, not just a policy priority.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. Big Issue exists to give homeless and marginalised people the opportunity to earn an income. To support our work buy a copy of the magazine or get the app from the App Store or Google Play.