top of page
Search

THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE TERRORISM ACT 2000 FOR PALESTINE ACTION:

  • 1 day ago
  • 6 min read

Preface (this has now been updated to reflect the current court ruling):

Just last week, on the 13th of February, the high court ruled that the government’s proscription of Palestine Action was “disproportionate and unlawful”. In light of this, what could this mean for the 2,500 arrested and does this suggest that there actually are effective checks in place to prevent the Executive from acting ultra vires? The court’s ruling carries significant weighting, reflecting the view that Yvette Cooper’s application of the Terrorism Act was far disproportionate. Although it is unlikely the government will change their broad definition of terrorism in light of this ruling, it does raise awareness about government overreach and what this could mean for freedom of speech for all citizens across the UK. 



Introduction: 


Before the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism legislation was made up of a series of temporary, but renewable measures, even during the height of conflicts like the Troubles. However, after the horrific events of 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings, the Blair government found it necessary to intensify already existing legislation. This led to the passing of not just the Terrorism Act 2000, but also the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 to name a few. Many of these laws have given the government “emergency powers”, which some have criticised for allowing the Executive to act ultra vires (beyond the scope of powers given to the PM). We saw this with criticism of the proscription of Palestine Action, which as of now is still considered a banned terrorist group by the government. Even holding a placard expressing support for the group at a peaceful rally may lead to arrest. This article will explore arguments both for and against whether the proscription of the group is lawful or if it goes against civil liberties. The legislation had previously only been used on groups intent on violence to the person, such as ISIS, rather than serious damage to property.


A vague definition of “terrorism”: 


Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 defines  terrorism as an action or threat designed to influence the government or intimidate the public. Its purpose is to advance a political, religious or ideological cause through violent action such as causing serious damage to property or endangering a person’s life. Both Liberty and Amnesty International criticised the UK’s definition of terrorism as being “extremely broad” and “extend[ing] beyond international definitions. Additionally, they have both said proscribing a group whose actions fall under the “outer reaches” of the definition is disproportionate. This is in reference to Palestine Group’s criminal damage to properties like the RAF Brize Norton. When activists broke into the Royal Air Force base, they sprayed red paint into turbines of aircrafts used by the RAF for air transport missions. Although this is a serious crime, many critics have argued that Palestine Action’s crimes are not as severe as those of groups like ISIS, whose threats to the British public are much more of a risk compared to Palestine Action, even though both groups being conscripted puts them on the same list. They have also accused the government of only proscribing the group due to the organisation’s pro-Palestine stance, rather than its criminal defacement of property since groups like Just Stop Oil have never felt such consequences despite committing similar crimes such as vandalising ex-PM Rishi Sunak’s home and  ancient monuments like Stonehenge- arguably more important buildings. The application of the Terrorism Act 2000 which has led to Palestine Action being proscribed as a terrorist group on human rights grounds is immoral and illustrates the government acting ultra vires- they are acting outside of their authority since the Human Rights Act did not give them the power to proscribe the group and hence doing so was an unlawful action. Indeed, Liberty asserts that this shows broad counter terror powers and a lack of clarity on where the line is drawn on criminal liability. The consequences of this is it discourages people from exercising their democratic right due to the risk of incurring sentences of up to 14 years in prison.



Severe Financial Consequences of Property Damage:


However, the government’s conscription of Palestine Action can still be justified by the fact that it has caused damage to properties funded by taxpayer money. RAF Brize Norton is the biggest military base in the UK, and much of it was funded by taxpayer money. The defacement to property by Palestine Action activists was more than just vandalism- the red paint sprayed into the turbines of the Voyager aircrafts made them unsafe to be used again, and the LBC announced that the attacks cost the defence industry at least £30 million. Yvette Cooper stated that “The UK’s defence enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this government will not tolerate those that put that security at risk”, suggesting the proscription was justified. Additionally, one may argue that the government cannot be accused of political leanings when the military bases defaced by the group did not solely provide weapons to Israel but also provided critical aid to Gaza. The choice of Brize Norton as a target of Palestine Action was questioned in the press. The RAF aircraft stationed there dropped 53 tonnes of aid to Gaza over the course of 6 flights, suggesting the RAF was also used to help the people of Gaza by dropping aid. The government’s proscription of Palestine Action was not on the basis that they were anti-Palestine but rather they threatened a critical government infrastructure which the state spends 2.4% of its GDP on. Although it is important to recognise private companies, like Elbit’s UK headquarters, have also been affected, the loss of taxpayer money incurred as a result of the group’s defacement of public property has been one of the main reasons why critics have agreed that the government’s proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000 was the right decision.


Infringement of civil liberties?

Nonetheless, critics argue that the proscription of Palestine Action has set a dangerous precedent in the expression of freedom of speech. The public was in an uproar when images of police arresting an 83-year old woman for holding up a placard was published on social media. The government’s use of the Terrorism Act 2000 has gone too far- besides their serious damage to property, most of Palestine Action’s protests have been peaceful. Under s.12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, anyone who expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation (including moral support or approval) can be arrested and potentially charged. The liability of arrest for anyone who expresses public support for the organisation has severe consequences towards one’s ability to fight for a cause that has been advocated for centuries in the past. The government’s overreach is demonstrated by how someone can be arrested simply for holding up a sign- is this not an infringement on freedom of speech and expression?


Deterrence: 

However, the crimes Palestine Action have committed, which includes causing serious damage to property, still fulfills the definition of terrorism under the Act. Although some may argue it is not “right” to put Palestine Action on the same list as terrorist groups like ISIS, who pose a much greater threat to the British public, the government must proscribe all groups that go against the definition. This should deter any groups from thinking the government is more lenient towards one form of violent action (eg serious damage to property) over another (eg causing serious violence to a person). 9/11 was 25 years ago, and 7/7 was 21 years ago-nonetheless, the UK government’s commitment as a counter-terrorism state means harsh legislation is often necessary for the greater good of the people. 



Conclusion: 


In conclusion, the banning of Palestine Action is not justified in accordance with the Terrorism Act 2000. Although Palestine Action has committed serious damage to property, and the activists responsible deserve to face legal consequences for the costs incurred to the Ministry of Defence, many pressure groups have also damaged property in a similar nature and have not faced as severe consequences. The arrest of citizens simply for holding up a placard is an infringement of one’s civil liberties, especially when done so through peaceful protest. Defacement of property is a severe offence, but most of the members who have only ever exercised peaceful protest do not deserve to face consequences towards their work or travel after being arrested for “terrorism”. Human rights pressure groups, Amnesty International and Liberty’s involvement in a hearing later this year regarding whether the government’s proscription was lawful emphasises the wrongful banning of the group, as most members do not pose a threat to society. 



References: 

Liberty’s intervention in judicial review of Palestine Action proscription






 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Diversity is fashionable, but is it valuable?

To begin with, I believe the right way to answer any question is to break down the key terms the question employs-which in this case are diversity, fashion and values. Diversity in the words of oxford

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page