On 5th July 2025, the British government used its powers under the Terrorism Act, (which allows the Home Secretary to ‘proscribe’ certain groups as terrorists by adding them to a proscribed list) to add ‘Palestine Action’ as a proscribed group, therefore banning them as a terrorist organisation.

The vote in the commons was overwhelming. However, several other terrorist organisations were named in the proscribed list. This meant voting against Palestine Action being proscribed, would also mean voting against proscribing groups like Maniacs Murder Cult (a white supremacist, neo-Nazi organisation), and the Russian Imperial Movement (a white supremacist, ethno-nationalist organisation).

The law as it now stands means that it is a criminal offence to be a member of Palestine Action, or to ‘recklessly express support’ for them. Recklessly expressing support is extremely vague and unclear but it’s important to note that being a member or being supportive of Palestine Action is now punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

The legal powers which are given to the police in cases of terrorism are significant, as are the legal processes which follow after an arrest is made. For instance, police can hold suspects without charge for up to 28 days, (rather than the 72 hour maximum for criminal offences) and suspects can be denied access to a lawyer when arrested and when being interrogated. The reason such far reaching powers are considered legitimate is because genuine terrorism is such an awful breach of other people’s rights, and it’s designed to protect the public from acts of violence such as the bombing of public spaces.

Before we go any further, we want to make it clear that we have no issue with legislation which aims to protect people against such extreme acts of violence and nor is this article expressing support for Palestine Action. Instead, our aim is to urge the government to re-think the proscription, given the palpable chilling effect it is having on activists, campaign groups, the third sector, and the democratic freedoms of the British public.

Our call joins the clamour of a growing number of voices – individuals and organisations – calling for de-proscription. It also coincides with news that the High Court has granted a Judicial Review* to review the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action. The judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, referred to evidence that there may be a real “chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views”. 

This news has come only after Lawyers for the Palestine Action’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, argued that the ban breaches the right to free speech and has acted like a gag on legitimate protest.

We are in total agreement of this argument, and can attest to a ‘chilling effect’. One which we, as an anti-racist, Black-led charity, which is vocal on the ongoing genocide in Gaza, have felt. And an affect we have seen ripple across the anti-racist and pro-Palestinian movement and third-sector groups.

That said, remaining silent on this issue cannot continue and a growing call for de-proscribing is now surfacing. Below we acknowledge just some of the other voices urging the Government to de-proscribe. Partly for context, and also to demonstrate that we are not alone in our view.

A Growing Call to De-Proscribe

Ordinary British Citizens – A protest planned for tomorrow (Saturday), in London, organised by Defend Our Juries, is predicted to see at least 500 people defy the ban by holding signs which read “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”. Those who do this, will likely be arrested and charged with terrorist offences as a result of the current rules. Those attending this protest, are fully aware of the risk of arrest (see the Met Police website statement here), but are committed to standing up for democratic freedom as well as the importance of calling out our government’s complicity in genocide being perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people.

Notably, also on Saturday, a separate march, aimed purely at protesting the genocide in Gaza, is taking place. Protesters at this march who wear articles of clothing or carry placards which arouse ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they support Palestine Action will be liable to be charged under terrorist legislation… No bombs, no ‘suicide cars’, no mass shootings, just a placard or a t-shirt.

Since the proscription, over 200 people have been arrested for holding up placards of the kind mentioned above. Many of those featured in the press have been elderly people, vicars, teachers, and members of the judiciary. However, to add to the confusion and fear the ban has caused, some protestors holding the same signs have not been arrested or charged.

Global collective of academics – On Wednesday of this week, a group of leading global scholars including Angela Davis, Naomi Klein, and Judith Butler signed an open letter to The Guardian calling the proscription of Palestine Action an attack on fundamental freedoms:

“As scholars dedicated to questions of justice and ethics, we believe that Yvette Cooper’s recent proscription of Palestine Action represents an attack both on the entire pro-Palestine movement and on fundamental freedoms of expression, association, assembly, and protest. We deplore the repressive consequences that this ban has already had, and are especially concerned about the likely impact of Cooper’s ban on universities across the UK and beyond”.

300 Jewish British Citizens – On Tuesday we read reports that 300 Jewish British citizens have signed a letter to the government which condemned the ban as ‘illegitimate and unethical’.

The UN Commissioner for Human Rights – Volker Turk, UN’s high commissioner for human rights, declared that proscribing Palestine Action “appears disproportionate and unnecessary”.

“It limits the rights of many people involved with and supportive of Palestine Action who have not themselves engaged in any underlying criminal activity but rather exercised their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association”.

“As such, it appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law.”

Many more including Amnesty International, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Runnymede Trust and The National Education Union have put out public statements condemning the proscription.

The Chilling Effect

Whilst we have seen hundreds of people protest the proscription, we are confident that there are many more who share their view but are prevented from voicing it from legitimate fear.

There is a reason why many of those arrested have been retired and older – they have less to lose.

Risking up to 14 years in prison is a big ask. They may be stuck for life with a record as a terrorist which will need to be declared. For example, when applying for travel visas, with this on their criminal records, such visas are likely to be denied.

Black and Brown protestors, already more vulnerable to hostile, aggressive policing, are particularly at risk and stand to lose even more.

It is also extremely high risk for the third sector – especially small, Black-led anti-racist organisations – to speak out. Unlike larger organisations, charities of our size don’t have access to a team of lawyers to obtain advice and often any financial buffers are not as robust. In fact, many funders are very risk-adverse and we run the risk of losing funding by challenging this, potentially even going under if that happens.

Anti-racist charities are already operating in an increasingly hostile space. We face criticism and accusations of antisemitism due to our stance of being pro-Palestine, our use of the word genocide, and our strong view that killing innocent civilians in Gaza is wrong. The fact that we are an anti-racist charity and our work is type-cast as ‘woke’, means we are an open target. Anti-racism work doesn’t shy away from the harsh reality of racism, and this makes people uncomfortable and defensive. The current climate, where people and organisations are shunning EDI and hyper-aware of the normalisation of the far-right makes us even more vulnerable. Due to ingrained racism, Black-led charities like ours also face more criticism and push-back.

As anti-racists we can also see this move by the government for what it is. We know our history, and we see the patterns. The government’s action is a suppression tactic, and one which sets a precedent that makes adjacent social justice movements vulnerable to the same action in the future.

This part of Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s statement demonstrates this clearly:

“Throughout history, every solidarity movement and struggle against colonialism has used a diversity of tactics. Targeting one part of the movement in this way is an attempt to suppress us all and a threat to everyone’s civil liberties”. 

We are explaining all of this to demonstrate to you that there is a reason why statements expressing concern about the proscription of Palestine Action have been slow to come out, or have not been voiced at all. Whilst there has been some increase in public statements of concern in the last week or so, the delay is primarily because those with the means have had no choice but to take time to get legal advice and the High Court’s decision for further review may have helped organisations feel safer in speaking out. The latter, alongside guidance from NetPol which emphasised that expressing our concern about the wider effects of the proscription is legal under section 10 of the Terrorism Act, has certainly given us some confidence to overcome our own organisational vulnerability.

Normally organisations come together to sign joint statements but it’s not hard to see why this hasn’t happened on this occasion. The silence on this particular issue has been LOUD.

A country such as ours, with a rich history of democracy and protest, should be very concerned. Proscribing Palestine Action will limit (and already is limiting) progress on many of the social justice issues MPs profess to care deeply about.

To end, we pose these further questions to our readers, and the government: Is it at all helpful that Palestine Action should have been added to a list of terrorist organisations such as those mentioned at the top of this article? 

Is criminal damage (for example spraying red paint on war planes) something that should be responded to as an act of terror? 

Does proscribing Palestine Action mean that the British public are safer, or is it more likely it will put us all at risk when the specialist police and judiciary are dedicating already limited resources to prosecuting people for carrying a slogan and filling up our infamously overcrowded prisons? 

What happens the next time the government feels under pressure? For example from people protesting for more action on the climate crisis or more action on institutional racism? Will they, us, be next? 

And, most importantly, if there is serious concern that our government are acting illegally and immorally by being complicit in facilitating war crimes and genocide, should their position not be open to challenge?

If you share our concern, we encourage you to act by sending this to your MP along with a personal perspective of your concerns.

*Judicial Review =  a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority.