Pressure grows on Yvette Cooper to abandon plans to ban Palestine Action

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Calls Mount for Yvette Cooper to Reconsider Ban on Palestine Action"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.6
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The UK Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, is facing intensifying pressure to reconsider her plans to ban the protest group Palestine Action. This pressure comes in the form of letters from the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, which caution that such a ban would dangerously blur the lines between protest and terrorism. In their correspondence, these legal experts argue that outlawing a group engaged in direct action could set a perilous precedent for civil liberties in the UK. They emphasize that the right to protest is a fundamental aspect of democracy, and using the Terrorism Act to suppress Palestine Action would constitute an abuse of this legislation. The letter has garnered significant support, with over 260 legal professionals, including prominent barristers and academics, signing it. They warn that banning Palestine Action could lead to severe repercussions for ordinary citizens, who may face legal consequences simply for expressing support for the group, thereby stifling freedom of expression and dissent.

In a related incident, two activists were arrested for blockading the entrance of Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense company located in the UK, marking a continuation of Palestine Action's direct action tactics. The arrests were made under suspicions of criminal damage and unauthorized entry, indicating the legal risks activists face. Meanwhile, UN experts have weighed in, stating that actions resulting in property damage, without the intent to harm individuals, should not be classified as terrorism. They argue that such actions ought to be treated as ordinary criminal offenses rather than as acts of terrorism. The Home Office has defended Cooper's stance, asserting that Palestine Action's activities warrant proscription under the Terrorism Act. As the situation develops, the implications of potentially banning a protest group continue to raise concerns among legal experts and human rights advocates regarding the future of civil liberties in the UK.

TruthLens AI Analysis

You need to be a member to generate the AI analysis for this article.

Log In to Generate Analysis

Not a member yet? Register for free.

Unanalyzed Article Content

The home secretary is coming under increasing pressure to abandonplans to ban Palestine Action, as UN experts and hundreds of lawyers warned that proscribing the group would conflate protest and terrorism.

In two separate letters toYvette Cooper, the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) lawyers’ group and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers said that proscribing the group would set a dangerous precedent.

Additionally, several UN special rapporteurs, including those for protecting human rights while countering terrorism and for promoting freedom of expression,said they had contacted the UK governmentto say that “acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”.

On Tuesday, two people were arrested after Palestine Action claimed to have blockaded the entrance of an Israeli defence company’s UK headquarters.

Avon and Somerset police said a 30-year-old woman and a 36-year-old man, both from London, were arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, unauthorised entry to a prohibited place and locking on to a person, object or land to cause serious disruption.

Earlier, a Palestine Action spokesperson said activists had blocked the entrance to Elbit Systems in Bristol and covered it in red paint “to symbolise Palestinian bloodshed”.

The Netpol lawyers’ group letter, shared exclusively with the Guardian, was signed by 266 solicitors, barristers and legal academics, including 11 KCs and 11 law professors. “Proscription of a direct-action protest group is an unprecedented and extremely regressive step for civil liberties,” they write. “The conflation of protest and terrorism is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes. Our government has stated that it is committed to respecting the rule of law: this must include the right to protest.

“To use the Terrorism Act to ban Palestine Action from direct action would be an abuse of this legislation and an interference with the right to protest. Misusing terrorism legislation in this way against a protest group sets a dangerous precedent, threatens our democratic freedoms, and would be a terrifying blow to our civil liberties.”

Signatories ofthe Haldane Society letter, which will be handed to Cooper before MPs vote on Wednesday, include Michael Mansfield KC and Imran Khan KC – who represented the family of Stephen Lawrence and victims of the Grenfell Tower fire – and the Labour peer John Hendy KC.

It has been signed by thousands of people including the politicians Caroline Lucas, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, the actors Adeel Akhtar and Juliet Stevenson, teachers and vicars.

The letter says: “It [a ban] would leave many ordinary members of the public vulnerable – for example, simply wearing a T-shirt saying ‘I support Palestine Action’ would be seen as violating the proscription and action would need to be taken.

“There are many dangers to proscribing peaceful direct action groups, even if their objectives are those some of us may disagree with. Current and future governments may misuse this precedent to attack other interest groups in future, offering no avenues for peacefully venting dissent.”

The prime minister, Keir Starmer, was a member of the Haldane Society but left when he became director of public prosecutions in 2008.

The UN experts said: “Mere property damage, without endangering life, is not sufficiently serious to qualify as terrorism …Protestactions that are not genuinely ‘terrorist’, but which involve alleged property damage, should be properly investigated as ordinary crimes or other security offences.”

The Home Office referred the Guardian toCooper’s statement last weekannouncing the proposed ban, and comments in a press release issued on Monday in which she said that Palestine Action’s acts “do not represent legitimate acts of protest and the level of seriousness of Palestine Action’s activity has met the test for proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000”.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian