In a stunning legal setback for the government, the Court of Appeal has refused to block a challenge against the controversial ban on Palestine Action under terrorism laws. This ruling opens the door for a High Court review of the ban next month, marking a significant victory for the group's co-founder, Huda Ammori, who has been fighting to overturn the decision. But here's where it gets controversial: while the Home Office insists Palestine Action remains a proscribed group, with supporters facing severe legal consequences, over 2,100 people have already been arrested in protests, many holding signs declaring, 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.' Is this a legitimate crackdown on terrorism, or an overreach of state power?
The ban, implemented on July 5, criminalizes membership or support for Palestine Action, a direct action group. Since then, 170 protesters have been charged, facing up to six months in jail. The government argued that the proper avenue for appeal was through a lengthy internal review process by the Home Office, followed by a potential hearing at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC). However, Ammori's legal team countered that this process was unfairly slow and inadequate, given the public support for the group and the urgency of the situation. And this is the part most people miss: Parliament never explicitly ruled out a faster judicial review, despite creating the slower alternative.
Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr sided with Ammori, ruling that she could lawfully challenge the ban directly in the High Court without waiting for the POAC process. Carr emphasized that a judicial review would provide a quicker and more authoritative judgment on the ban's legality, which could then influence criminal cases against supporters. The Home Office, while noting the decision, doubled down on its stance, accusing Palestine Action of escalating criminal campaigns, including damage to national security infrastructure and intimidation. 'Supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist group are not the same thing,' a spokesperson warned.
But Ammori fired back, calling the government's attempt to avoid scrutiny a 'spectacular backfire.' The Court of Appeal not only allowed her challenge but also expanded the grounds on which she can contest the ban in November. 'Arresting peaceful protesters and those disrupting the arms trade is a dangerous misuse of counter-terror resources,' she stated. Is the government silencing legitimate dissent under the guise of national security? This case raises critical questions about the balance between security and civil liberties—and the public’s response could shape the future of protest and free speech in the UK. What do you think? Is the ban justified, or does it go too far? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments.
