The UK government has signalled its intention to “proscribe” the protest group Palestine Action under anti-terrorism legislation. This will place it in the same legal category as Al Qaeda and Islamic State: it will be illegal to belong to the group, to show public support for it, to arrange a meeting in support for it, and so on. The difference between Palestine Action and Al Qaeda et al, as many commentators have pointed out, is that it has never committed violence against individuals or, as far as we can tell, does it have any plans to do so. It is a protest group which seems to adopt fairly typical strategies of civil disobedience. It seems to have attracted the ire of the government, though, by breaking into a military base and spraying red paint on aircraft (as a protest over the government’s support for Israel).
I am not the first to say this, but: if this is terrorism, then so too was the Greenham Common Peace movement. The women of Greenham Common also (regularly) broke into a military compound and committed criminal damage there. Their stated aim was to force the government to stop storing cruise missiles on the site. But the women of Greenham Common are not usually considered terrorists: in fact, visit the scene now and you will see a public monument to their efforts.
So, can any sense be made of the apparent claim that – quite aside from any purported threat to kill or harm or cause mass panic among civilians, none of which appear to be at stake here – mild damage to physical assets should count as terrorism, in cases where those assets are military in nature? Or is this an instance of absurd legal over-reach, intended to produce a chilling effect on anti-war protestors?
NB: Let’s keep any discussion focused on the nature of terrorism and the question of whether this is a good use of legislation please – there are plenty of opportunities to discuss the conflict(s) in the Middle East elsewhere.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
MisterMr 06.24.25 at 9:02 am
According to authoritarian regimes, terrorism = people who disagree with the regime.
Phil Edwards 06.24.25 at 10:03 am
Terrorism as defined in the 2000 Act has a three-part definition, covering act, overall motivation and immediate aim. The act can be any one of a number of completed or attempted actions; the overall motivation must be political, ideological, religious or racial [sic – I would have thought ‘political’ covered racist goals]; and the immediate aim must be to influence the government or to intimidate members of the public. The immediate aim doesn’t need to be proved if firearms or explosives were used.
A terrorist act can be one that involves ‘serious damage to property’ (Terrorism Act 2000 1(2)(b)). There’s been some argument to the effect that ‘obviously’ this doesn’t mean daubing paint on planes on lease to the RAF or temporarily shutting down Elbit Systems, but I think that’s the wrong emphasis – it’s only too easy to make the argument that damage valued at however many thousand £ should be considered ‘serious’.
The fact is, the terms in which the legislation is drafted are – by design – incredibly broad. As I wrote on Verfassungsblog a bit back, “suspicious acts and individuals qualify to be considered as ‘terrorist’ on the basis of an act of more or less speculative inference—which is itself an exercise of prosecutorial discretion”. In that article I was writing about the inclusion of ‘preparation’ offences under the heading of terrorism, but something very similar applies to the inclusion of different kinds of violence. On one hand, there’s nothing in the legislation to stop someone who hasn’t done anything illegal or harmful being convicted for preparing to commit an act of terrorism, if the prosecution presents a persuasive intelligence-backed case that this is in fact what that person was doing. On the other hand, as we’re seeing now, there’s nothing to stop someone who has committed a type of politically-motivated direct action that would never normally be considered terrorism from being prosecuted as a terrorist.
If the proscription of Pal Action goes through, it will be a very sad day for democratic politics in Britain. It’ll mean the end of direct action as a protest tactic, and it’ll reduce the compass of extra-parliamentary politics to the most orderly and well-managed protest events – and even those will be constantly policing themselves to expel disorderly elements so as to avoid being associated with them.
Chris Armstrong 06.24.25 at 10:21 am
Thanks Phil, that’s very informative. It does seem the legislation is very capacious in what could be considered terrorism. But as you say, its extension to a case like this appears entirely novel. One would think it would have been easy to prosecute PA under regular criminal damage or public order legislation, of the type used to prosecute Just Stop Oil. The decision to turn instead to terrorism legislation is extraordinary.
engels 06.24.25 at 10:32 am
Britain is experimenting with a new route to fascism, where you don’t have charismatic leaders, just bumbling Mr Brittas types.
engels 06.24.25 at 10:35 am
Btw this means you can get up to 14 years for expressing approval of Palestine Action, does it not?
Chris Armstrong 06.24.25 at 10:40 am
@5 – I believe so, yes.
Phil 06.24.25 at 10:49 am
In a 2019 addition to the Act (which some of us hoped Labour might repeal when they got in):
A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and
(b) in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.
“Reckless” here basically means that you don’t have to intend to encourage hearers to support the proscribed organisation; if you want to be sure of avoiding prosecution you need to make it clear that you don’t have that intention. Real 1984 stuff – which has only been made even vaguely tolerable by how sparingly the government’s used it. Until now.
NomadUK 06.24.25 at 11:31 am
Thank heaven we stopped that whackjob Corbyn from becoming PM! Really dodged a bullet there.