Is it now terrorism in Britain to support non-violent disruption of systems accused of genocidal violence?
With the impending proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, Britain risks criminalising not violence but outrage. To treat protestors daubing paint on aircraft as akin to Islamic State is both absurd abroad and repressive at home. Yet that is precisely what the Labour government proposes.
The legal bar under section 3 is broad: “terrorism” includes serious violence or property damage intended to influence government policy. On paper, one might claim Palestine Action qualifies; in practice, the law seems to be in danger of going too far.
Palestine Action’s activists have targeted military suppliers to Israel, particularly Elbit Systems. They have trespassed, occupied buildings, and damaged equipment. But they have not planted bombs, incited murder or armed insurgents. They have not killed anyone, nor sought to. What they have done is make a nuisance of themselves, strategically and unapologetically.
Under section 12 (1), even voicing moral support could become a jailable offence – not financial or logistical aid, just expression. This would not only ban Palestine Action, but criminalise the very belief that their non-violent tactics are justified to stop atrocities.
The criminalisation of moral support for non-violent direct action targeting systems that enable mass civilian deaths is, we believe at AOAV, wholly disproportionate.
It is political. The Home Office has offered no credible evidence that Palestine Action poses a threat to national security. Yes, the rush to proscription came days after a paint attack on RAF Brize Norton and security was breached. But the RAF said it had no operational impact.
The temptation to reassert state authority is plain to see. But terrorism law is not meant to be a tool for policing non-violent dissent. It is meant to protect lives.
To deploy these powers against civil disobedience, however provocative, risks setting a precedent that any arms-manufacturer donor might later lobby. This decision does not appear in a vacuum. The same government that permits British-made F-35 parts to reach Israel amid accusations of war crimes now seeks to silence those who object to that complicity. As Gaza is reduced to rubble, the British state is reducing some non-violent protests to terrorism.
Protest has long been labelled extremism, from Greenham’s peace women to the Fairford Five. One of those five, Josh Richards, was even represented by a young Keir Starmer. Today, Starmer’s government threatens to jail people for similar acts.
The circle is not only complete. It’s a noose.
What recourse remains to those who believe British weapons are fuelling atrocities? How do you express opposition to complicity, when even holding a placard reading “We Are All Palestine Action” may be deemed criminal under section 13? Can human rights organisations articulate moral support for non-violent direct action? Can journalists publish sympathetic interviews? If a schoolchild tells a teacher their parents admire the activists, must they be reported?
These are not absurd hypotheticals. They are the logical consequences of a law that makes thought a crime and solidarity with those facing alleged genocide a threat. The Home Secretary’s discretion is now a weapon. This author no longer knows if he is guilty of morally supporting terrorism and, having penned a book decrying suicide bombers, he takes this moral dilemma rather seriously.
To stand against this proscription is not to endorse every tactic of the group. It is to defend the principle that protest is not terrorism. And that those who act to stop atrocities, however disruptively, are not the same as those who commit them.
AOAV exists to document and prevent harm to civilians from the use of force. We believe that violence begets violence, and that silence enables it.
A government that continues to license arms linked to the deaths and injuries of some 50,000 children in Gaza should not decide what forms of protest are morally acceptable. Terror laws should shield the public from true acts of terror – not shield the state from being challenged by those who still believe protest matters.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate