The High Court’s Palestine Action Ruling Is Perverse — and Dangerous, writes Lord Walney

Palestine Action was proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 because it repeatedly and deliberately committed criminal damage in pursuit of a political cause. This was not about holding unpopular opinions. It was not about waving Palestinian flags. It was not about chanting at marches. It was about organised sabotage — property destruction intended to exert political pressure.

The court was concerned that banning the group might hinder freedom of speech or deter people from expressing support for Palestine more broadly.

But look around. Britain has witnessed some of the largest and most sustained pro-Gaza protests in recent memory. Cities have seen weekly demonstrations, mass rallies and highly visible campaigning. The idea that speech has been chilled is not borne out by reality. It is contradicted by it.

What has happened instead is that some activists have chosen to stage-manage their own arrests by brandishing “I Support Palestine Action” placards in defiance of the law.

This is not a suppression of liberty; it is political theatre. They were not silenced. They were not disappeared. They were not prevented from protesting. They knowingly crossed a legal line to create a spectacle — and then cited that spectacle as proof of oppression.

That inversion of logic now appears to have found sympathy in court.

If the state is told that enforcing laws against criminal damage risks suppressing lawful speech, we are entering dangerous territory. The distinction between speech and action is foundational. You may advocate for a cause. You may condemn the government. You may march, chant, publish and campaign. But you may not break the law and expect immunity because your motive is political.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism is not confined to violence against individuals. Serious economic damage intended to influence government falls within the statutory definition. That may not align with the public’s instinctive understanding of the word “terrorism,” but it is the law Parliament enacted.

If courts begin narrowing that definition based on cultural discomfort with the term, they are substituting sentiment for statute.

There is a broader inconsistency here, too. Organisations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood have long operated in the UK at the edge of acceptability — often avoiding overt violence while promoting deeply illiberal aims and seeking to influence democratic processes. That debate remains unresolved. But in the case of Palestine Action, we are not dealing with abstract ideology or rhetorical radicalism. We are dealing with concrete, repeated criminal acts.

Reasonable people can argue about thresholds. They can debate proportionality. But to claim that cracking down on organised lawbreaking threatens free speech is a category error of the highest order.

If this reasoning stands, it sets a precedent that any politically motivated criminality can cloak itself in the language of civil liberties. Break the law loudly enough, claim political virtue, and enforcement itself becomes suspect. That is not how a democracy defends freedom. It is how it erodes the rule of law.

Activists may believe the High Court may believe it has struck a blow for liberty. In reality, it has blurred the line between protest and sabotage.

So the Home Secretary is right to appeal it; let’s hope common sense ultimately prevails.

__________

Lord Walney is a former Labour MP and British Government Independent Advisor on Political Violence and Disruption.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk