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”?

Nope that wasn’t in the judgment at all.

Well I’m out. I’ve done my best there I think.

What right to protest do you think was at risk from the judgement?

The people being arrested as a result of the judgement were holding banners supporting the group that committed terrorist acts. What other right to protest was curtailed?

if you go back through the posts, posters have explained a few times about this.

The right to peaceful assembly is always part of the consideration when proscribing groups, not just in this case, in every single case.

It seems to be confusing you that the judgement said that some of their activities could meet the definition of terrorism. This is because those activities in the Act are very broad so it’s not the only test for proscription.

In addition, nobody in Palestine action has actually been charged with terrorism offences.

Are you suggesting that because of the proscription of Palestine Action, people no longer had the right to peaceful assembly?

agree
and It seems some people just haven’t read the actual ruling
It’s online for all to see

I don’t know what else to say; I’m not “suggesting” anything. I am telling you a fact

When any group is proscribed as a terrorist group it always restricts peaceful assembly. That’s why it is a big important decision. It’s an exceptionally powerful thing to do. So it needs to be done according to the governments own policies.

Maybe you fundamentally disagree with the terrorism laws here. You might want to look at Egypt, the UAE or Russia for the kind of terrorism laws you would be more in agreement with.

To add
Heres a piece from Amnesty on Russias terrorism laws
Akin to the vague definitions some posters would prefer here

’ 19 February 2024

Russia: Surge in abuse of anti-terrorism laws to suppress dissent

A disturbing escalation in the abuse of vague anti-terrorism and anti-extremism legislation in Russia has intensified since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022,

Amnesty International said today.
The briefing “Terrorising the dissent” documents how Russia’s authorities have increasingly targeted dissenters and peaceful protesters under the guise of “national security.”
“What we are witnessing in Russia today is not just a misuse of law.

The authorities have instrumentalized anti-terrorism and anti-extremism legislation as tools to stifle dissent and control public discourse in ways that are alarming and heartbreaking.

These laws, vague in their wording and arbitrary in their application, are used to silence voices of opposition and instill fear among those who dare to speak out,” said Oleg Kozlovsky, Amnesty International’s Russia Researcher.

A slippery slope. If you don’t agree with us we’ll call you terrorists.

When any group is proscribed as a terrorist group it always restricts peaceful assembly.

It restricts supporting the proscribed group. Can you give any examples of rights to protest that have been curtailed as a result of the proscription other than supporting the group that has engaged in terrorist activities? We all agree that you were already not allowed to bludgeon women with sledgehammers or attack military aircraft.

In addition, nobody in Palestine action has actually been charged with terrorism offences.

That didn't seem to trouble the judge who agreed that Palestine Action were engaged in acts of terrorism.

If you don’t agree with us we’ll call you terrorists.

And you said you'd read the judgement. Extraordinary that you could make that claim if you have actually read it.

its quite obvious you have copied that from my post on Russia!!

Why oh why would you think that has anything to do with the U.K. judgement
dearie me

Update on court cases

Over 30 cases involving defendants charged with supporting Palestine Action (under the Terrorism Act 2000) have been adjourned until April 27th 2026, pending the outcome of an appeal.

As of mid-February 2026, several Palestine Action activists who were previously held in UK prisons without bail or on long-term remand have begun to be released on bail, following a significant High Court ruling on February 13, 2026, which deemed the government's ban on the group unlawful.
.
Palestine Action activists and bail:

The HC ruling has also changed the legal landscape for detained members.

Following the ruling and recent legal challenges, some activists who had been on remand for up to 18 months have been released on bail ahead of their cases.

Before the February 2026 ruling, numerous activists were held on remand for extended periods—exceeding the standard six-month pre-trial limit !!! - leading to protests and hunger strikes.

Well, you posted it on a thread about the UK judgement. Are you saying that you posted an entirely irrelevant post about Russia? Why did you do that?

What 'slippery slope' were you talking about if not trying to imply that the UK government proscribing a terrorist organisation for committing acts of terrorism (which is the subject of this thread) was a 'slippery slope' to banning groups that disagree with them?

Interesting ...

www.declassifieduk.org/how-palestine-action-put-the-justice-system-on-trial/

No
I tagged @Dagda s comment referring to Russia who equally was tagging your comment about terrorism laws referencing maybe you’d rather more lax proscription laws like eg Russias
Entirely relevant if you RTT

Wow
Thanks
Interesting how suddenly the law has changed there.

That's a really informative read, thanks for posting.

@Dagda
Thank you for patiently explaining the implications of the ruling.

And now the Court of Appeal has overruled the High Court and decided that the ban was entirely lawful. They have ruled that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence and that they are not, as they claim, a direct action civil disobedience protest group operating transparently in the open. They are, according to the court, a covert organisation using secret cells to avoid detection and using violence to destroy property. The court also says that their Underground Manual shows a continuing intention to promote the use of violence regardless of the risk that this will result in serious damage to property or serious violence to members of the public.

I understand Palestine Action have indicated they intend to appeal to the Supreme Court. Whilst I would never rule anything out, I would be surprised if the Supreme Court overturns this judgement.

Personally, I think this is the right decision. I also disagree with Zack Polanski - if you attack someone with a sledgehammer and break their back, you should be in prison regardless of your motivation and, indeed, regardless of whether your victim was a police officer, a security guard or a member of the public.

Yes - I posted this on a different board but also relevant on this one:

The government's proscription of Palestine Action as a terror organisation is lawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In one of the most significant rulings on national security in recent years, five of the most senior judges in the country overturned an earlier decision from the High Court that the ban had breached the right to protest and had been incorrectly taken by ministers.

But five Court of Appeal judges concluded in a hearing on Monday that the ban had been "justified and proportionate".

In a statement, the group's co-founder Huda Ammori, who brought the original legal challenge against the Home Office, said she intended to appeal the ruling to the UK Supreme Court.

Palestine Action has remained banned since the High Court ruling in February to allow for further legal arguments and give the government time to consider an appeal.

The proscription made it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gy927jx88o

This

"Personally, I think this is the right decision. I also disagree with Zack Polanski - if you attack someone with a sledgehammer and break their back, you should be in prison regardless of your motivation and, indeed, regardless of whether your victim was a police officer, a security guard or a member of the public."

No matter whom you support. This is never, ever right, the violent man is now in prison where he should be.

ZP is an idiot. No idea why anyone would vote for him

A moment of sanity in the absolute madness surrounding Israel / Palestine debate.

They appear mad:

"he court also says that their Underground Manual shows a continuing intention to promote the use of violence regardless of the risk that this will result in serious damage to property or serious violence to members of the public."

PA was not the only organization to be proscribed during that single vote, one other organization was something you couldn't possibly vote against proscribing (maniacs murder club), so kind of a three for one deal was had

It doesn't restrict peaceful assembly at all. It justs stops peaple holding banners etc supporting a proscribed terror organisation.

People can support Palestine just not support the twats from Palestine Action, that think hitting female poice officers with sledgehammers, whipping security guards, smashing up property, breaking and entry, massive damage to UK airplanes that are noting to do with the conflict in Gaza! It's not hard to understand really. In the same way that you can support Palestinians without supporting Hamas a proscribed terrorist organisation.

@DifferentNameForQuestion Terrorism laws are very powerful and they can restrict peaceful assembly. Once a group is labelled terrorist, it targets someone even reciting a poem in support of the group.

Terrorism laws, all over the world are like this, they have to be to protect us from violence. So what I’m saying is just factual. That’s not even the question. The question here if they were used in a necessary, proportionate way. Clearly you believe they were and it seems the courts do to.