The crackdown on protest in England and Wales has been ringing alarm bells for years, but the decision to ban Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws raises the stakes dramatically.
As the group itself has said, it is the first time the British government has attempted to proscribe a direct action protest organization under the Terrorism Act, placing it alongside the likes of Islamic State, al-Qaeda and National Action.
British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the proposed ban was evidence-based and had been assessed by a wide range of experts.
Illustration: Mountain People
“In several attacks, Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the government,” she said.
Proscribing the group, which uses direct action mainly to target Israeli weapons factories in the UK, would make it illegal not only to be a member of Palestine Action, but to show support for it.
Given that neither its methods nor its targets are unprecedented, a ban is likely to make every group which has an aim of “progressing its political cause and influencing the government” through protest think twice.
Greenpeace UK coexecutive director Areeba Hamid said a ban would “mark a dark turn for our democracy and a new low for a government already intent on stamping out the right to protest. The police already have laws to prosecute any individuals found guilty of a crime.”
Laws passed over the past few years have already increased police powers to restrict and shut down protests. At the same time, protesters have often been gagged from telling juries what motivated their actions and have received record prison sentences.
The final straw for ministers appears to have been the embarrassing security breach at Royal Air Force (RAF) Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on Friday last week, in which two Palestine Action activists broke in and sprayed two military planes with red paint.
However, protesters have caused criminal damage to military facilities in the past and even been acquitted for it, while Cooper herself admitted it might not amount to terrorism.
Before becoming British prime minister, Keir Starmer successfully defended protesters who broke into an RAF base in 2003 to stop US bombers heading to Iraq. He argued that it was lawful, because their intention was to prevent war crimes.
Palestine Action said that pro-Israel groups had lobbied for the ban, and there is evidence to support that contention.
Internal government documents released under freedom of information laws have revealed meetings, apparently to discuss Palestine Action, between the government and Israeli embassy officials, although they were heavily redacted.
Ministers have also met representatives from the Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems.
The organization We Believe in Israel, which Labour MP Luke Akehurst used to be director of, began a campaign this month to ban Palestine Action.
In an accompanying report, it stated: “In July 2022, the group was investigated under counterterrorism protocols following intelligence suggesting contact between some of its members and individuals linked to Hamas-aligned networks abroad (see: Metropolitan Police briefing, classified).”
“While the investigation yielded no direct terror charges, it underscored the degree of concern shared by law enforcement agencies over Palestine Action’s increasingly radicalised behaviour,” it said.
It is not clear how or why We Believe in Israel was granted access to classified documents.
There was no reference to links to Hamas in Cooper’s statement, but she did refer to Palestine Action as threatening infrastructure which supports Ukraine and NATO, echoing language in We Believe in Israel’s report.
With the government already unpopular among many over its stance on Gaza, the planned ban risks looking like it is based on Palestine Action’s cause rather than its methods.
“Proscribing a direct-action protest group in this way potentially sets a new precedent for what we do and do not treat as terrorism,” said Akiko Hart, director of civil rights organization Liberty.
“We’re worried about the chilling effect this would have on the thousands of people who campaign for Palestine, and their ability to express themselves and take part in protests,” she said.
“Proscribing Palestine Action would mean that showing support for them in any way — for example, sharing a post on social media or wearing a logo — could carry a prison sentence,” she added.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS