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”?

I googled violent countries and it came up with Yemen. So then I thought about people who support Yemen and I remembered those pro-Palestine idiots who marched through London chanting 'Yemen Yemen make us proud, turn another ship around'.

Of course they weren't really supporting Yemen, but the Houthis whose slogan is Death to Israel and a Curse Upon Jews. It's not the whole country that's violent, but the Houthis absolutely are.

I definitely have opinions about those people who marched in support of the Houthis. This apparently makes me a dictator and you are now living in a dictatorship. 🤷‍♀️

Only one
interesting
i counted 17 or so and not even going back too far historically

Well I’m much the same.

But I also think that terrorism laws should be used appropriately and with caution. Even if it doesn’t directly affect me now, it sets a dangerous precedent.

@noblegiraffe No you are not a dictator. I don’t know if these individuals were arrested or not. But It could be argued that this was glorifying an illegal act and was not a political slogan but an incitement of violence.

But It’s very different to what we are talking about here where; because PA was unlawfully proscribed as a terrorist group even completely peaceful supporters of the group were arrested.

Well I was trying to stay on the thread topic of arseholes doing shitty things supposedly 'for Palestine' and idiots cheering them on because 'Palestine'.

None of those shitty things, the said arseholes do, actually helps 'Palestine', not sure that bothers the arseholes much though. Sadly, idiots do cheer said arseholes on 'cus Palestine' innit

Are you on the wrong thread? This one is about a government ignoring their own guidelines, unlawfully proscribing a direct action group and stifling free speech and according to a pro Israel lobby group this was done this as a direct result of their actions. But sure it's the people who are against the government acting unlawfully and stifling free speech who are the idiots, not the people cheering them on because it's just Palestine, this time.

A group that the judge has said has committed acts of terrorism. Yeah, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of them being de-proscribed and causing millions of pounds more damage to military planes that do not refuel Israeli bombers that I and other taxpayers will be paying for. Whose spine will they break next time?

Celebrating this bunch of arseholes being allowed to continue plotting their attacks is pretty shitty.

The ruling made it clear that criminal law was appropriate for these acts. The ruling isn’t condoning any illegal activity .

I get that you don’t mind if a group is unlawfully proscribed as terrorist when you disagree with the group.

A few of us are just pointing out that there is a risk to that stance.

Shouldn't we all disagree with a group committing terrorist activities?

@ReturnOfTheToadits a bit naive to think that have ‘grannies’ on the frontline isn’t part of a big sympathy drive and PR stunt by PA! If you actually look into why they were classed as a terrorist organisation it makes sense!

This unlawful proscription has cost the government millions of pounds. There is no need to support a government acting unlawfully seemingly at the direction of lobby groups when people who commit crimes can be charged according to the law. Which lobby groups do you want the government to act unlawfully for next? Is there a point where you would say actually a government should follow their own guidelines or are we tearing them all up and letting the government do as they please?

Do you think that you get to pick and choose according to your feelings when the government acts lawfully and when it doesn't because that isn't how it works. Throw the rules in the bin and they are in the bin.

Maybe you should write to the judges and tell them that, I'm sure they would value your insight.

You seem to think that I should be absolutely shocked that the government 'acted unlawfully' in proscribing a group that has committed acts of terrorism as a terrorist organisation.

What actually seems to be the issue is where the line of 'an acceptable amount of terrorism for an organisation to commit' is, not that this organisation was entirely innocent of terrorism and had been unfairly maligned by the government.

We are not in a position of 'government unlawfully bans group that disagrees with them', we are in a position of 'government bans group that didn't commit enough terrorism to meet an artificial definition'.

People going 'oh next time it might be a group you support' - I don't support any groups that commit any acts of terrorism, so why should I be worried?

What does worry me is that this group haven't shown any remorse for their actions so now plan on continuing their actions, including acts of terrorism until they have met the threshold for proscription. Can you reassure me that that's not going to happen?

Unlike another poster claimed I am not a member of PA so I can't tell you anything about their future actions.

I can tell you that 3 very experienced judges in the high court deliberated for over 2 months and determined that governments ban was unlawful and disproportionate. That Yvette Cooper breached her own policy on the proscription process and in doing so impacted people's rights to free speech and protest. I can tell you that a pro Israel lobby group is claiming that it was as a direct result of their lobbying that this unlawful decision that interfered with people's rights was made.

I'm far from shocked that some people don't mind regulations not being followed and governments acting unlawfully. People support the unlawful acts of governments around the world every day, it's nothing new and will continue. If something doesn't affect people personally they often have very little interest and are more than willing to turn a blind eye, even more so if the unlawful acts align with their personal views.

Government bans group that didn't quite commit enough terrorism isn't as exciting a headline for the frothers though is it?

OK. This is completely unproductive. You don't have an issue with governments acting unlawfully and impeding people's rights, I do. The end really. Have a good day.

No, I'm not going to cry about a government banning a group that has committed acts of terrorism and 'impeding people's right' to support that group that has committed acts of terrorism. I don't think that's the terrible thing you are making it out to be.

My opinion is that the group should have immediately disbanded once the news came out that they broke a police officer's spine. My opinion is that people should have stopped supporting them then. My opinion is that if they have committed acts of terrorism no one should support them ever again. No one should want to be a member. Unfortunately, some people are arseholes and some people are idiots.

My tolerance for terrorism is 'zero'. Apparently the legal allowable amount of terrorism is much higher. Judges ruled that the government's tolerance for terrorism was below the legal amount of terrorism in this case.

You're trying to make this into a free speech issue. It's a tolerance of terrorism issue.

You're happy with a higher level of terrorism than zero. Let's hope that never personally impacts you.

Out of interest

Would you like the government to follow their own policies when proscribing terrorist groups?

It's important to stick to the facts of the case, the judges did not say that there is a legal allowable amount of terrorism. As said multiple times in the thread by multiple posters the ruling made it clear that criminal law is appropriate for these acts not that there is a legal amount of terrorism.

Sure.

But do I think this was an egregious misuse of power? No. It's a fucking awful group who committed acts of terrorism and other really shitty acts (not sure if breaking the police officer's spine counts as one of those terrorist activities, I don't think it has been made clear). We're quibbling over legal thresholds here and the proscription remains in place for now.

You're trying to make this into a free speech issue. It's a tolerance of terrorism issue.
**
It’s the legal judgement that considered the right to free speech and assembly- not the Poster! In any proscription case the courts is always dealing with rights as well. The terrorism laws themselves, that I assume you approve of, have a section pointing to laws around rights.

They are always linked, for reasons that have been explained a few times on the thread.

Palestine Action committed acts of terrorism

Palestine Action should not have been proscribed rules judge

Therefore groups are legally allowed to commit some acts of terrorism without being banned as terrorist.

Question for you:

Are you 100% sure that Palestine Action, if/when the proscription is officially lifted, will not commit any further acts of terrorism?

Yes, apparently we have to tolerate a certain level of terrorism in order that people can wave placards supporting that terrorism.