The British government underestimated the public response to its ban of a pro-Palestinian protest group using terrorism legislation, according to an internal document obtained by The New York Times.
The document, a “community impact assessment” prepared by several government departments and police officials in March, provided official advice to ministers about the likely impact of outlawing Palestine Action, a protest group that has vandalized weapons factories and military equipment.
The group was banned as a terrorist organization in July, putting it in the same category as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Atomwaffen Division, a neo-Nazi group.
It was the first time in modern British history that a protest group that does not call for violence against people had been labeled a terrorist organization. The decision has fueled intense debate over the attitude of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government toward protest and free speech.
Since the ban, more than 2,000 people have been arrested for holding signs voicing support for the group, an action that is now a terrorism offense, and police officials say the protests have strained Britain’s criminal justice system. A further wave of demonstrations is planned across Britain next week.
The March assessment failed to anticipate the scale of protest, claiming that “much of the British public” would “remain largely unconcerned” by the ban and saying it would “likely be viewed positively by the majority of U.K. communities.” The report did note rising pro-Palestinian sentiment and concerns about free speech, but also asserted that the ban would “instill confidence” that terrorism laws were being applied consistently across all groups.
The British government is now fighting a costly court battle after a founder of Palestine Action started legal action calling the ban unlawful. A hearing in London’s High Court will take place this month.
Senior police officers have said the ban, which has caused the number of arrests made under terrorism laws to increase more than tenfold, had piled fresh demands on an “already stretched” counterterrorism system.
The assessment did warn that a ban could be “exploited by concerned actors” and become “a flashpoint” for criticism of the government. But it predicted the strongest opposition would come from “smaller communities,” mainly Muslims, who represent about 6 percent of the population in England and Wales.
Those arrested at protests against the ban have included teachers, priests, retirees, doctors and military veterans from a range of ethnic and religious backgrounds.
Palestine Action was declared a terrorist organization on July 5, days after activists broke into a military base and vandalized planes.
The group had used property damage, particularly spraying red paint, in protests mainly targeting the Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems and other companies it accused of links to the Gaza conflict.
The assessment obtained by The New York Times was a partly redacted version that was disclosed following a Court of Appeal hearing in September.
It noted that polling suggested “growing frustration with Israeli military actions” in Gaza, with a majority of Britons supporting ending arms exports to Israel, and said a ban may “inadvertently enhance” Palestine Action’s profile.
“Some may view PAG’s focus on Israeli military actions as being part of legitimate discourse and protest activity,” the document said. “It is highly likely that British people who hold strong views about civil liberties would oppose proscription as representing a creep of terrorism powers into the realm of free expression and protest.”
Despite that, the document did not predict any demonstrations except outside trials involving members of Palestine Action.
Since the ban came into effect, protests have been organized by a separate group called Defend Our Juries, where people have silently held signs reading: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”
The law used to arrest protesters, Section 13 of Britain’s Terrorism Act 2000, makes it a crime to wear, carry or display an object in circumstances that “arouse reasonable suspicion” that someone is a member or supporter of a proscribed organization, which can be punished with up to six months in prison.
Speaking at a news conference last week, Laurence Taylor, the head of U.K. Counter Terrorism Policing, said his officers were “already stretched” and listed enforcing the Palestine Action ban among issues creating “a lot of noise in the system that risks detracting counterterrorism policing from its core mission.”
In September, a senior officer from London’s Metropolitan Police said at a news conference that responding to the protests against the ban had already cost millions of pounds.
“We are responding to people committing offenses against the Terrorism Act,” said Ade Adelekan, a deputy assistant commissioner. “People have made an informed decision to come out and commit offenses. They leave us with no choice.”
Mr. Adelekan said the scale of the protests had diverted officers from their “core policing responsibilities.”
In a statement, the British government defended the ban, saying Palestine Action had “put the safety and security of the public at risk.”
“Decisions on proscription are not taken lightly,” it said. “They are informed by a robust evidence-based process, with contributions from a wide range of experts from across government, the police and the Security Service.”
The post Ban a Pro-Palestinian Group? The U.K. Government Thought Few Would Care. appeared first on New York Times.
