The proscription of Palestine Action: Are the protests justified?

On July 5 2025, Palestine Action was proscribed and deemed a terrorist organisation within the UK. Founded in 2020, the group aimed to end Israeli apartheid in the wake of the ongoing slaughter of Palestinians. Since its proscription, protests have sparked across the UK, leading to the continual arrest of citizens for their defiance of the ban. The flare-up in arrests has provoked the question of how citizens should engage with protest – are they justified in their objections or causing unnecessary disruption?

In the official proscription of Palestine Action, the then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper stated that her decision to prohibit the group lies under the Terrorism Act 2000. In her statement, she cited the June 20 attack on Brize Norton in which a group of protesters broke into the air base and spray-painted two RAF Voyager planes, causing £7 million worth of damage, according to the police. Palestine Action claimed the incident as one of their acts of protest against the UK’s support for Israel’s war on Gaza. Cooper proceeded to argue that the event is one of many criminal acts carried out by the organisation. Following this incident, Cooper stated that within the UK, “lawful protest is a fundamental right but violent criminality is not”, furthering questions surrounding how protest should rightfully be conducted.

The majority of Cooper’s statement rests on the claim that her decision to prohibit the group and all things associated with it “does not affect lawful protest groups and other organisations campaigning on issues around Palestine” and that the group merely forgoes “regular protest” etiquette. According to Cooper’s claims, the proscription of Palestine Action is specific to this solitary ‘terrorist’ organisation, meaning that citizens are still free to protest against the humanitarian situation and crimes against humanity currently unfolding in Gaza.

Cooper’s claims contradict the arrest of peaceful protesters who are dissatisfied with her decision to proscribe Palestine Action, leaving the policing of protesters unexplained and unjustified

In her article for The Observer, Cooper states that “the proscription of [Palestine Action] is not about protest or the Palestinian cause”, asserting that the two are separate matters. The Secretary’s defence of the group’s proscription was made following the staggering arrests of citizens showing support for Palestine Action, reaching 700 arrests on August 17 since the ban on July 5. Cooper’s claims contradict the arrest of peaceful protesters who are dissatisfied with her decision to proscribe Palestine Action, leaving the policing of protesters unexplained and unjustified.

During the sit-in protest conducted in Parliament Square on August 9, 474 people were arrested for their support of Palestine Action. Most protesters were holding placards with the message “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action”, resulting in their apprehension. Many protesters were reluctant to speak to the media regarding the protest, however one anonymous protester told the BBC: “If they ban Palestine Action, what other group is next? Until we’re just no longer allowed to protest anything. That’s the opposite of democracy.” The peaceful means by which demonstrators have chosen to display their support for the group do not engage with the ‘violent criminality’ that Cooper warns the public against. The direct attack upon democracy does not align with the former Home Secretary’s separation of Palestine Action and the Palestinian cause.

The targeting of vulnerable citizens for their defence of free speech implies that these arrests are causing more disruption than peace

One noticeable detail among those who have been detained is their age. Half of those who were arrested at the Parliament Square protest were aged 60 or older. The targeting of vulnerable citizens for their defence of free speech implies that these arrests are causing more disruption than peace. The Guardian spoke to some of these protesters, unveiling their intentions for their resistance towards the ban. Deborah Hinton, 81, was arrested July 19 in Cornwall and stated that “Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation”, rather it is “a direct action organisation, like [many others]”. Hinton said she was shaking as the police officers approached her and other placard holders, arresting them one by one. John McGowan, a Catholic Priest, also spoke to The Guardian stating that “The focus shouldn’t be on Palestine Action. The focus should be on what the government isn’t doing for the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.” McGowan attended the Parliament Square protest with the intention of being arrested in support of the cause, stating that he did not care if he was given a criminal record. Hinton and McGowan are just two of the many demonstrators expressing their frustration towards the proscription in a non-disruptive manner.

In response to these arrests, Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson has told the Metropolitan Police that their arrests are justified. Parkinson reaffirms that Palestine Action is now a proscribed terrorist organisation and those who have chosen to support them will be subject to criminal proceedings under the Terrorism Act. He goes on to detail the severity of a terrorism conviction, stating that they can “severely impact your life and career,” urging “people to think very carefully about their actions at protests.” Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, also said that “these arrests and prosecutions do not outlaw people’s right to demonstrate in support of Palestine, or any other cause. They are simply the enforcement of a specific provision under the Terrorism Act.” Rowley echoes Yvette Cooper’s claims that the proscription of Palestine Action and the Palestinian Cause are two separate matters.

Protesters have made it clear that the proscription of Palestine Action is a direct impediment to the cause for Palestine, asserting that merely holding a placard saying so facilitates an arrest

Despite these claims, the disruption the arrests have caused should still be under scrutiny. For the BBC, solicitor Katie McFadden reported that she has “seen police look incredibly uncomfortable with the fact that they are having to treat elderly people as criminals,” claiming they looked “quite shocked and horrified that this is what they were having to do as part of their job,” forcing them to question their true responsibility – protecting the public. Police and prosecutors are now faced with a new challenge due to this rise in arrests, obliging them to ask: how many protesters must be charged to send a message to the public? What would happen if they didn’t charge them at all?

In lieu of this, Cooper’s intention to keep the proscription of Palestine Action and the fight for the Palestinian cause separate seems to have been undermined. Protesters have made it clear that the proscription of Palestine Action is a direct impediment to the cause for Palestine, asserting that merely holding a placard saying so facilitates an arrest. The disruption of the rising protests themselves does not appear to outweigh the disruption of the arrests, for both demonstrators and police officers.