UK ban on Palestine Action unlawful, high court judges rule

[purpletablet]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/13/uk-ban-palestine-action-unlawful-high-court-judges-rule

Does this mean people will no longer be arrested for holding up a sign saying “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”?

It’s not that Iran is ignored, it’s that in the context of being a UK citizen, the UK government isn’t aiding and abetting Iran as it kills citizens like is is with Israel.

@Underthinker

You asked about the free speech angle and I’m literally just telling you what it is. Labelling a group as terrorist, like your ISIS example, does restrict rights and give extra powers to the authorities. And that’s why it is really important that groups meet that very high threshold. and the courts have found that PA did not meet the threshold so the right to free speech was threatened.

@quantumbutterfly yes it is more serious but that can be dealt with under criminal law.

Terrorism law is powerful, it gives big powers to the police and government and it needs to be used carefully. It is within all of our interests that it is not used disproportionately.

The reason PA exists and why UK citizens have been protesting against Israel is because the UK government supports Israel and its actions. The protests are to change the UK government’s position on Israel. We don’t need to do that for Iran because the UK government doesn’t support Irans actions. Do you understand that?

I certainly understand that you care more about who is doing the killing ( with who's support ) rather than the actual killing itself.

I'm not going down the rabbithole of collective responsibility for government actions. Anyone who gives it a moments thought discounts it- especially in the context of Israel / Gaza.

You really have made yourself very clear and I understand you perfectly- thankyou.

What are you trying to say then? It was courts who have decided what is appropriate. The judges will have had all of the governments evidence and they decided that it could be dealt with under existing criminal laws. It is them, with all the evidence in front of them, who decided 'how seriously' this should be taken nobody else.

You imply I'm talking about the judges and judgement, I'm sure we both know I'm not.

That’s not what I said. The discussion was about political accountability, not moral preference. Citizens typically protest the actions of their own government because that is where they have influence.

Objecting to UK support for Israel is about democratic responsibility, not “caring who does the killing”. Governments are accountable to their own populations.

I don’t see anyone not shocked that the police officer had her back fractured whilst arresting PA
No one has said that’s in any way acceptable on here

A guilty verdict wasn’t reached because the Jury couldn’t decide and the Jury were shown more footage than we have seen online and as has been already said intent must be proved.

The issue here is whether their actions constitute proscribing them as terrorists

Agree of course we should be discussing PA along with their purpose and actions.

It’s the thread

Can you be more specific then? The judges are the ones who decided how 'seriously' this 'threat' should be taken. You quoted my posts which have been about the judges decision and the Terrorism Act. Why would I not assume that you were talking about the judges and their judgement?

Of course PA can’t get away with illegal activity
They've been arrested for criminal damage and GBH
They aren’t getting away with anything they are being tried in a court of law.

Isn’t that obvious from the arrests and court cases

I refer you to my first reply. If you choose to go round in circles you can tick it off as your daily cardio.

Quite right
On that note here’s an interesting article bringing Trump into it and I wouldn’t at all be surprised if he had a hand in pressuring the U.K. Govn on the PA terrorist issue

I’ll post the whole article as I can’t link

Article from The Guardian

’ The Palestine Action ruling vindicates the courageous – and shames the complicit
Owen Jones

The home secretary has vowed to fight the judgment, but she and the government are on the wrong side of history
Fri 13 Feb 2026 15.29 GMT
Share

This is a day of humiliation for those who facilitated Israel’s genocide in Gaza – and a moment of vindication for those who stood against “the crime of crimes”. It is worth underlining what the high court in London has today ruled to be unlawful: our government’s decision to place the direct-action group Palestine Action on the same legal footing as al-Qaida and Islamic State.
Legally speaking, simply showing support for it risked a jail sentence of up to 14 years.

The consequences? More than 2,700 people arrested for holding placards opposing genocide and supporting Palestine Action, many of them elderly, including a retired octogenarian priest.

No one who engages in criminal damage for a political cause imagines they will avoid arrest. As the court ruling makes clear, normal criminal law remains available for such acts. But when a government applies the badge of “terrorism” to movements that, however disorderly, are clearly not terrorist movements, an alarming precedent is set. As the court recognised, the proscription interferes with rights to freedom of expression, to peaceful assembly and free associations with others. You do not need a fevered imagination to see how a future Reform UK government could build on such a precedent. (As things stand, the ban on the group remains in effect so the government has time to appeal.)

The judges’ ruling did argue that Palestine Action’s adoption of direct action goes beyond civil disobedience. That’s because it seeks to damage property – primarily, to destroy equipment belonging to the Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems. Well, fine, but then the suffragettes weren’t a civil disobedience movement either. Today, they are secular saints, lauded by some of the same MPs who voted to proscribe Palestine Action, even though their tactics were far more extreme. Let’s not forget, the suffragettes planted bombs, burned down private homes and even killed people.

History’s judgment on that movement is clear: the greater crime was the disenfranchisement of women. Their actions are seen through that prism.
In this case, a UN independent commission, genocide scholars and NGOs ranging from Amnesty International to Médecins Sans Frontières have concluded that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people. The international criminal court (ICC) – of which the UK is a founding member – long ago issued arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former defence minister for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Britain supplies crucial components for Israel’s fighter jets, shares intelligence and permits its citizens to fight in Israel’s army.
In the abstract, how would a reasonable person respond if asked: “If you have strong grounds to conclude that your own government is facilitating genocide – the crime of crimes – should you do whatever it takes to stop it, even if that means breaking the law?” That is undoubtedly a question English juries have wrestled with, because they have repeatedly acquitted Palestine Action activists hauled before the court. No wonder the government wants to curb trial by jury.

Our home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has declared that she will “fight” the judgment in the court of appeal. It is worth noting that according to his published correspondence with Peter Mandelson, Mahmood’s cabinet colleague Wes Streeting declared last year: “Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes.” Moreover, more than a decade ago, Mahmood was marching against an Israeli onslaught against Gaza which – however horrific – was not anywhere near the scale of the current genocide.

It stretches incredulity to believe that Mahmood does not share Streeting’s conclusion that Israel has committed war crimes, because denying that is like subscribing to flat-Earthism. The British government refuses to state the obvious because that would impose legal obligations on it. For a start, it would not be lawful to supply the crucial components of fighter jets to a state committing war crimes. That’s why the then foreign secretary backtracked last year when he described Israel’s blockade of Gaza as what it is: a violation of international law.

In sum, smashing up the equipment of an Israeli arms manufacturer isn’t lawful – but neither is arming a state committing war crimes, and indeed genocide. Which should we treat as the most serious?

There is one major question to be answered. After Palestine Action vandalised Donald Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland in March 2025 – before the group was proscribed – the president described them as “terrorists” and expressed hope they would be “treated harshly”. We also know that Trump discussed Palestine Action twice with our prime minister. The contents of that conversation must be revealed to establish whether proscription was discussed.

That only 26 MPs voted against this unlawful legislation tells you everything you need to know about our soulless, cowardly political establishment. But those who have facilitated genocide should begin to panic. The suffragettes, alas, did not have court rulings in their favour at the time, and their cause was – however absurdly – controversial. Women did not receive the vote in full until 1928, and the suffragettes’ canonisation came decades later.

But polling shows that the British public believes Israel’s attack on Gaza was not justified, supports an arms embargo and sanctions against Israel, and supports the arrest of Netanyahu. Polling in the US shows that half of Americans believe Israel has committed genocide, with just over a third disagreeing. That the ICC issued arrest warrants despite colossal western pressure is another sign of where this all leads.

< i have deleted the last paragraph as, whilst everyone has a right to their opinion, some on here may find it upsetting but you can of course read the full one in the Guardian>
End

I wasn't asking whether PA can get away with illegal activity - it looks like CPS might try for another go on some of the charges related to the Bristol event so on that side of things it is still wait and see.

I was asking whether some supporters of PA are minded to think activity up to and including violence against indivdiduals might be justified because of the cause?

Interestingly a lot of the subsequent discussion seems to have been designed to avoid going anywhere near answering that specific question.

Wow, you are hilarious. Just don't bother quoting my posts in your rants about hangings and executions if they aren't relevant and then I would have written them off as what they are

You're welcome. I am hilarious occasionally. Though I rarely rant, especially not on mn, and I prefer to effervesce than to froth.

Yes, and indeed trying to frame the opposite - if you are concerned about these violent actions you must support the mass murder of women and children.

Just had a look through the “circular arguments”, though I think you might be wrong about who is going around in circles. You know the people making weapons aren’t part of Britain’s national security and are not military owned.

They are a private corporation making weapons that are being used in a manner that governments across Europe and the rest of the world are questioning and many are using terms like war crimes and genocide. Even Israeli soldiers have gone on camera to document how these drones are being used to indiscriminately target civilians (including children) and blow up civilian infrastructure.

The people breaking in are committing a crime - they are breaking into a corporations building, not a government building. The people who are being financially hit by the vandalism are corporations who are profiteering from the deaths of civilians. This is not a threat to national security, it is a threat to corporate’s profit margins and Israel’s ability to continue their genocide. Vandalism is a crime but it is not as reprehensible as making drones for people who are targeting civilians!

I don’t believe criminal activity should be justified because of the cause
Neither does the Law
Thats why they have been charged

No! Hitting someone with a hammer is never acceptable - unless your life is seriously under threat.

It sounds like there was an argument for self defence in regards to the other 5 activists with violence from the security guards.

@Stirabout and @KoalaKoKo

thanks.

Yup. I'm all for criminal prosecutions. If someone breaks the law charge them and give them a fair trial like everyone else accused of breaking the law. I have no complaints about people who choose direct action being charged appropriately. I'm against governments acting unlawfully, going against their own guidelines and restricting people's rights.

Excellent post.

Attacking our military aircraft is an attack on our national security, yes?

Aircraft that PA claimed were being used to refuel Israeli bombers which is both physically impossible and completely stupid given the distance from Israel to Gaza.

Exactly
Which is the crux of the matter and why posters on this thread are against the Govn proscribing PA as a terrorist organisation.

The Govn have overstepped and if such actions are allowed to stand it’s a very slippery slope
Who’s next ??