The UK’s home secretary, Yvette Cooper, plans to proscribe the protest group Palestine Action under anti-terror law. This move, if approved by parliament, would criminalise the group’s existence, making it a crime to be a member of the group or to support it in any way.
Palestine Action emerged in 2020, first drawing attention when its members broke into and spray painted red the UK headquarters of Elbit Systems, an Israeli defence contractor. In the years since, the group has sprayed paint, blockaded or otherwise vandalised a number of institutions it sees as complicit in Israeli military actions, such as a Lockheed Martin facility and two Barclays branches.
The group’s website describes it as a “direct action movement committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.
The term “direct action” has historically been used for tactics ranging from legal protest to traffic obstruction and property damage, such as animal rights activists smashing laboratory equipment used for experiments on animals. Or, more recently, the roadblocks carried out by Extinction Rebellion.
Palestine Action’s campaign has caused substantial property damage. Five activists were jailed after a 2022 protest at a Glasgow weapons equipment factory that caused more than an estimated £1 million in damage due to pyrotechnics thrown inside the building.
Activists are also accused of causing £1 million in damages to Elbit property near Bristol in 2024. Eighteen face charges of aggravated burglary and criminal damage, 16 of whom also face a charge of violent disorder. Nine have pleaded not guilty, while others have not yet entered a plea. During the Bristol attack, one person was accused of assaulting police officers with a sledgehammer, and has pleaded not guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
The group’s recent spray-painting of two military jets at RAF Brize Norton – reportedly causing millions of pounds in damage, combined with the military nature of the target – seems to have been the breaking point for the home secretary.
The question is whether all this makes the group a terrorist organisation.
The terrorist list criteria
The UK’s list of proscribed groups currently contains 81 organisations, from radical Islamists such as al-Qaida to neo-Nazis such as the Base.
The legislation behind the list, the Terrorism Act 2000, imposes serious punishments for proscribed organisations’ members or supporters, from a fine to a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Even wearing clothing or publishing an image supporting a proscribed group can be punished by up to six months in prison or a fine of up to £5,000.
For a group to be proscribed, it needs to be determined by the secretary of state to be “concerned in terrorism”, basically meaning committing or planning terrorist acts. The definition of terrorism is long and legalistic, but is, essentially, the politically-motivated use or threat of actions to intimidate the government or public through violence or destruction, including “serious damage to property”.
This latter justification, serious property damage, has been invoked by the home secretary in discussing Palestine Action’s planned proscription. So, technically, Palestine Action appears to meet the criteria.
But there are a variety of groups carrying out serious property damage that have not (yet) been proscribed under anti-terrorism law. Following the same logic, the government could theoretically proscribe Extinction Rebellion and other groups that might not be widely thought of as terrorist organisations.
Whether it makes sense to proscribe the group, however, is a matter of debate. Proscribing Palestine Action on the basis of its alleged property damage would set a precedent in legally declaring that this type of direct action – vandalism – is considered significant enough to invoke the Terrorism Act in this way.
Palestine Action is different in an important way from currently proscribed terrorist organisations.
In Palestine Action’s five years of attacks, it has never killed anyone, or apparently attempted to do so. There have, though, been several injuries allegedly associated with the group. Two people were charged with assaulting an emergency worker at a protest – after the intention to proscribe the group was announced. At some of the group’s actions, members have been charged with assaulting security guards.
In her statement to parliament, Cooper cited the group’s “impact on innocent members of the public fleeing for safety and subjected to violence”. But the primary focus of the government’s intention to proscribe the group seems to be around serious damage to property, particularly related to national security.
Many currently proscribed groups have killed thousands of people, from al-Qaida on September 11 or 7/7 to groups like Hamas or Hezbollah attacking Israelis or Boko Haram’s killing sprees in Nigeria.
There are some less violent proscribed groups. For example, UK-based Islamist group al-Ghurabaa (and the related Saved Sect, also known as al-Muhajiroun) have not been clearly linked to actual violence, although the group is accused of glorifying violence, for example celebrating the 9/11 attacks. It has also apparently inspired terrorist attacks.
The government’s choice to start using serious property damage as sufficient criteria for terrorist designation would be a substantial change in how anti-terrorism law is applied.
What happens next?
If Palestine Action were to be proscribed, the consequences could be substantial.
Since any support of the group would be a crime, a protest in support of the group – like the one that happened June 23 – could lead to thousands of arrests. If supporters failed to turn out, and the members stopped participating out of fear, it could lead to the end of the group.
Or the group might shift to strictly legal or less damaging direct actions, like permitted marches or blockades. This would be a clear victory for the government.
An ultimate goal of proscription is to keep dissident groups protesting legally. It sometimes works. Al-Muhajiroun and other local groups seemingly often tried to walk the fine line of being as extreme as possible, while staying “just within the law”.
It is also possible that current Palestine Action members form renamed groups and carry on with criminal direct actions. Fragmenting and renaming groups is a common response to proscription, as we have seen with al-Ghurabaa, and with armed groups abroad like Lashkar-e-Taiba, as my own research with my colleague Muhammad Feyyaz has shown.
This results in counter-terrorism officials playing Whac-A-Mole, frequently updating legislation with aliases and chasing many smaller groups or a broader movement instead of one organisation.
Overall, the government might be legally justified to proscribe Palestine Action. What parliament must decide, however, is if the group poses enough of a threat to warrant this change to precedent. And officials should think about whether the action is likely to bring about the desired consequences, or if it could radicalise supporters into more violent action.
Brian J. Phillips works on a research project that receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
