When Dissent is Criminalised: The UK’s legal fight over Palestine Action
On 13th February 2026, the Palestine Action terror ban was deemed to be unlawful by the High Court. The ban, which had led to close to 3000 people being arrested, was introduced by Yvette Copper after Palestine Action activists broke into an RAF base.
While the ban remains intact for the moment, the decision by the High Court allows us to reflect on the choice of the government to issue this ban in the first place and to explore the controversial nature of said ban.
The Home Secretary’s choice to label Palestine Action as a terrorist group can only occur (under the Terrorism Act 2000) if the organization carries out serious violence against a person, serious damage to property or creating a serious risk to the safety of the public. Copper’s ban, in the aftermath of the RAF base incident, links to the Act’s focus on damage to property. The issue with Copper’s ban (supporters of Palestine Action argue) is that the label of terrorism has been placed upon the group to stifle their efforts in critiquing Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The co-founder of the group, Huda Ammori, worded this concern about the government focusing on “appeasing pro-Israel lobby groups and weapons manufacturers, and nothing to do with terrorism.”
So why has Ms Ammori accused the government of appeasing these lobby groups?
The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council said they were “deeply concerned” by the High Court ruling, saying that the “practical impact of Palestine Action’s activities on Jewish communal life has been significant and deeply unsettling”. The impact of Palestine Action’s activities is painted to being damaging to Jewish communities, bordering on (or actually being) antisemitic behaviour. However, the most common form of activity by Palestine Action (protesting Israel’s genocide against Gaza) would not be deemed to be antisemitic, as per the working definition of antisemitism by the IHRA. Therefore, Ammori’s comments suggest that the ban (and the severity of the ban) was not an attempt to address terrorist concerns, nor issues of antisemitism. The ban acts as a form of appeasement, a punishment for Palestine Action that ensures that pro-Israel groups that support Labour (e.g. Labour Friends of Israel) are kept happy.
While the High Court ruling presents a pathway for the ban being fully overturned, there are wider issues within the ban on Palestine Action. The very ability for the Labour Government to issue the ban against Palestine Action, which then empowered the police to arrest many peaceful activities carried out by the group, sets a dangerous precedent for the rights of the public. A person’s ability to protest, as made evident by the Palestine Action situation, can be stripped if the agenda they are pushing clashes with the governments (or the agendas of government supporters). Opposing genocide, in the case of Palestine Action, through holding up signs was deemed to be a valid reason by the police for thousands of people to be unlawfully detained. In the future, we may see the government continue to use the guise of “terrorism” to ban and attack certain groups or movements. If this continues, the public would be at the mercy of law enforcement (until any prospective bans were overturned by the courts).
The case of Palestine Action highlights the contentious nation of the right to protest and the agendas of government. The way in which Israel has conducted itself in Gaza has received international condemnation. Protests by Palestine Action have been shut down and aggressively policed by law enforcement due to the ban by the government. Going forward, it appears that this strategy could be utilised by the government to shut down any movements that directly counter their agendas (or the agendas of key donors and interest groups).
By Nifemi Femi-Sanni
