More than 50 individuals were detained during a demonstration outside the Labour Party conference in Liverpool, where protesters voiced their backing for Palestine Action, a organisation recently proscribed under terrorism legislation.
The arrests occurred as part of a coordinated police operation targeting supporters of the banned group. Demonstrators had gathered peacefully before officers moved in to make arrests under the Terrorism Act, citing concerns over the display of material supporting a proscribed organisation.
Police Intervention and Arrests
Merseyside Police reported that over 250 people initially assembled outside the conference venue, many carrying homemade banners expressing solidarity with Palestine Action. While the majority of attendees were not believed to have committed any offence, law enforcement moved to detain those displaying flags or signs associated with the outlawed group.
A police spokesperson emphasised that the force respects lawful protest but stressed its duty to maintain public order and safety. “Detailed and co-ordinated plans were developed in advance to ensure actions were applied consistently, fairly, and proportionately,” the statement read.
Among those arrested was 94-year-old human rights barrister Margaret Owen, who was attending the event organised by Defend Our Juries, a campaign group advocating for the release of individuals jailed over their activism.
Amnesty Condemns Detentions
Amnesty International swiftly criticised the arrests, describing them as a “shameful attack on freedom of speech.” Kerry Moscogiuri, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, argued that peaceful protest remains essential to democratic engagement and warned against successive governments clamping down on civil liberties.
“Protesting is one of the most effective tools we have to make our leaders listen to us,” Moscogiuri said. “The arrest of grandparents, teenagers, and others for simply holding placards represents a deeply troubling erosion of fundamental rights.”
Government Defends Proscription
The controversy stems from the government’s decision last year to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act, following allegations of criminal damage linked to the group’s activities. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood previously stated that the ban does not target support for Palestinian causes but rather addresses what officials describe as “significant criminal damage to legitimate businesses.”
Both the High Court and Court of Appeal have upheld the proscription, ruling that the group engaged in acts of terrorism. However, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the ban after granting permission for an appeal by one of the organisation’s co-founders.
In response to the latest demonstrations, a Home Office spokesperson reiterated that the proscription was the result of a rigorous, evidence-based process endorsed by Parliament. “Lawful protest in support of the Palestinian cause remains a fundamental democratic right and is unaffected by these measures,” the spokesperson added.
Political Pressure Mounts
Organisers of the Liverpool protest urged the newly appointed Prime Minister Andy Burnham to reconsider the ban, arguing that sustained public opposition and mounting enforcement costs render the policy both impractical and unjust.
“Continuing the charade of proscribing Palestine Action is illogical, unsustainable, and immoral,” said a spokesperson for Defend Our Juries. “We had hoped the new leadership would act sensibly in light of widespread public pressure.”
As legal proceedings continue and political tensions rise, the incident highlights growing divisions between state security priorities and civil liberties advocacy within British society.
Why it Matters
This episode underscores the delicate balance between national security and democratic freedoms in contemporary Britain. With the Supreme Court set to deliberate on the legality of proscribing activist groups, the outcome could reshape how protest movements operate under counter-terrorism frameworks. For citizens and campaigners alike, the case raises urgent questions about transparency, accountability, and the extent to which dissent can be criminalised in the name of protecting public order.
