A pro-Palestinian protest group won permission from a judge on Wednesday to challenge the British government’s decision to ban it as a terrorist organization.
The government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer banned Palestine Action on July 5, saying that the group’s campaign of vandalism, including of military planes at a Royal Air Force base, had put Britain’s national security at risk.
As a result of the designation, the group was added to a list of terrorist organizations that includes ISIS and Al Qaeda, prompting criticism from the United Nations and a broad range of human rights groups that argued the decision was disproportionate and a threat to free speech.
A judge at the High Court in London ruled Wednesday that the group could challenge the ban, citing its impact on freedom of speech over the conflict in Gaza, which he called an “issue of considerable importance” to Britain as a whole.
The judgment comes against the backdrop of a fierce public debate in Britain about Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza, where starvation is spreading after months of restrictions on aid. On Tuesday, Mr. Starmer announced that Britain would recognize a Palestinian state if Israel did not agree to a cease-fire with Hamas by September.
Since Palestine Action was banned, more than 200 people have been arrested in Britain on suspicion of expressing support of the group, including for holding signs reading “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action” and wearing T-shirts with the slogan “Genocide in Palestine. Time to take action.”
Justice Martin Chamberlain said there were “numerous examples” in which the police responded to protesters whose intention may have been “simply to call for action of one kind or another in relation to the situation in Palestine.” That, he said, demonstrated that the ban was “likely to have a significant deterrent effect on legitimate speech.”
Documents filed at a previous High Court hearing showed that the British home secretary, Yvette Cooper, decided to ban the group on June 20, hours after activists broke into the country’s largest Royal Air Force base and sprayed two planes with red paint.
In a statement to Parliament on June 23, Ms. Cooper said that Palestine Action’s conduct met the legal definition of terrorism because it “committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the government.”
It was the first time the British government used part of its legal definition of terrorism that covers “serious damage to property” to ban a group rather than prohibiting it because of the use or threat of violence.
Lawyers representing a founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, argued that the decision was unlawful on eight grounds and that the consequences of the ban had been “severe and wide-ranging,” causing repression of wider protests over “the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza” that they said had no link to the group.
At a hearing at the High Court on July 21, her lawyers applied to challenge the ban on the grounds that it had an “improper purpose” by restricting a “civil society” rather than a terrorist group; that it breached laws protecting free speech and protest; that it was based on an “error of law”; that it was legally “irrational”; and that it violated the British government’s own policies.
Justice Chamberlain ruled on Wednesday that the lawyers were allowed to argue two of their eight challenges: the accusation that the terrorist designation was “unlawful interference” with freedom of speech and the right to protest; and Palestine Action’s claim that the British government had an obligation to consult it before deciding to list it as a terrorist group.
Lawyers representing the government had argued that a full legal challenge should not be allowed to go ahead and that the terrorist designation was lawful. They said any complaint should be instead made to an internal government commission.
But Justice Chamberlain said that process was “not suitable,” partly because a large number of people had already been arrested as a result of the ban and partly because a decision on whether it was legal should not have to wait.
However, he refused a separate request by Palestine Action’s lawyers to suspend the law until the legality of the ban was decided, ruling that the full case could not be heard until November at the earliest.
The ban led to the immediate application of a broad range of terrorism laws restricting the group. To be a member of Palestine Action, or to raise funds or express support for it, became criminal offenses, as did arranging meetings for it, displaying its logo or failing to disclose information to the police about any banned activities.
Palestine Action has mainly targeted facilities in Britain linked to military companies, including Elbit Systems, an Israeli weapon manufacturer.
In March, after the group vandalized the Trump Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, President Trump referred to its members as “terrorists” and called for them to be “treated harshly.” The activists had defaced the resort’s clubhouse with red paint and painted “Gaza is not 4 sale” on part of the golf course.
The post Pro-Palestinian Group Can Appeal U.K. Ban, Judge Rules, Citing Free Speech appeared first on New York Times.
