Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, has publicly defended her decision to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, following a High Court ruling that deemed the ban unlawful and “disproportionate”. The court’s judgment raises critical questions regarding the treatment of protesters and the implications for individuals arrested in connection with the group. Despite the ruling, the proscription remains effective, with Shabana Mahmood, Cooper’s successor as Home Secretary, confirming plans to appeal.
Court Ruling and Its Implications
The High Court’s decision emerged from a legal challenge initiated by Palestine Action, which has undertaken numerous protests against UK military actions in Palestine. The court’s ruling could have far-reaching consequences for the thousands of people arrested at protests linked to the group, as the proscription makes it a criminal offence to support or associate with Palestine Action, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
During an appearance on Sky News’ *Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips*, Cooper reiterated her belief that her actions were guided by comprehensive assessments from various agencies, including police advice. She stated, “I followed the clear advice and recommendations, going through a serious process that the Home Office goes through,” asserting that the court recognised the group’s activities were not representative of lawful protest.
Justifying the Ban
When pressed on the specifics of the advice that led to the ban, Cooper opted not to disclose detailed information but emphasised the importance of heeding warnings related to public safety. “If you ignore advice that you are given about risks to public safety, then you’re really not taking seriously the responsibilities of home secretary,” she stressed.
Palestine Action has been involved in 385 direct actions since 2020, drawing attention to its political cause through disruptive means. While the High Court acknowledged that only a “very small number” of these actions constituted terrorism, it highlighted the group’s overall approach as one that promotes criminality.
Political Reactions
The ruling prompted a mixed response from political figures. Shadow Foreign Secretary Dame Priti Patel expressed her disappointment over the court’s decision, asserting that it is imperative the government appeals the ruling. “I think the public would be absolutely horrified to see that these individuals have been able to essentially get away with the type of activity that they have been able to thus far,” she remarked.
Conversely, a coalition of 26 Labour MPs and peers, including notable figures such as former minister Lord Peter Hain and senior MP John McDonnell, has urged the government to reconsider its appeal, reflecting a split in party opinion on the matter.
Why it Matters
The High Court’s ruling against the government’s ban on Palestine Action raises significant concerns about the boundaries of protest and civil liberties in the UK. As the government prepares to appeal, the implications for freedom of expression and the right to protest are under scrutiny. This case not only highlights tensions surrounding activism in the context of international issues but also underscores the broader debate regarding state responses to dissent. The outcome of the appeal could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, ultimately shaping the landscape of protest rights in the UK.
