Facebook
Britain's News Portal
Around The Clock
BREAKING
Loading latest headlines…

Palestine Action Ban Will Be Overturned, Co-founder Vows Despite Court Ruling

Palestine Action's co-founder, Huda Ammori, has pledged to overturn the group's terrorism ban, despite a recent Court of Appeal ruling upholding it. Ammori stated the fight would continue in the courts and 'on the streets'.

  • The Court of Appeal ruled Palestine Action's ban under the Terrorism Act lawful, reversing a High Court judgment.
  • Huda Ammori, co-founder, expressed disappointment but vowed to appeal, potentially to the European Court of Human Rights.
  • Ammori asserted the ban is disproportionate to free speech and protest rights, calling the case 'completely political'.
  • The ruling followed the sentencing of four activists involved in a raid on an Israeli arms factory, where a 'terrorist connection' was cited.
  • Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood stated Palestine Action's actions are inconsistent with democratic values and the rule of law.

The co-founder of direct action group Palestine Action has declared that the organisation will ultimately succeed in overturning its ban under the Terrorism Act, regardless of a recent Court of Appeal decision. Huda Ammori stated that the struggle would be won either through further legal challenges or via continued direct action 'on the streets'.

On Monday, a panel of five Court of Appeal judges unanimously ruled that the ban on Palestine Action was lawful. This judgment reversed an earlier High Court decision from February, which the appeal judges deemed had incorrectly limited the Home Secretary's discretion regarding national security matters. Palestine Action is the first direct action protest group to be proscribed under the Terrorism Act, and Ammori initiated the legal challenge against the ban.

Despite the setback, Ammori expressed confidence in their legal position. She asserted, "I'm certain that legally we are correct that this ban is disproportionate to free speech and the right to protest." Ammori indicated a willingness to pursue the case through all available legal avenues, including potentially appealing to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

The legal proceedings have unfolded alongside a sustained campaign of civil disobedience, which has seen over 3,000 arrests, primarily for displaying placards in support of Palestine Action. On the day of the appeal court ruling, 117 individuals were arrested outside the court, with two more arrests occurring outside the Old Bailey, where a separate criminal trial involving group activists is ongoing. Ammori emphasised the importance of such defiance, stating, "This case is completely political, and the way we are going to win this is on the streets."

Ammori also highlighted what she perceived as the politicisation of the case, referencing the appeal judges' assertion that "Palestine Action has little or nothing in common with the suffragettes." She criticised this comparison as "completely inaccurate and quite crazy." This ruling follows another recent blow for the group: the sentencing of four activists on Friday for criminal damage at an Israeli manufacturer's arms factory near Bristol. During their sentencing, the judge ruled a "terrorist connection" to the criminal damage charge, a point not presented to the jury during the trial. Ammori suggested this sequence of events felt orchestrated to ensure convictions and justify the ban.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood commented on the Court of Appeal's decision, stating that the court found Palestine Action has "carried out acts of terrorism, celebrated those who have taken part in those acts and promoted the use of violence." She added that the group is "not an ordinary protest or civil disobedience group, and its actions are not consistent with democratic values and the rule of law." Mahmood clarified that the decision does not impact lawful protest.

Why this matters: This case tests the boundaries of protest and free speech in the UK under terrorism legislation, with implications for how direct action groups are categorised and regulated. It raises questions about the balance between national security and the right to protest.

What this means for you: What this means for you: This case could influence how the government defines and responds to protest movements in the UK, potentially affecting the scope of permissible direct action and the legal framework for organisations engaging in such activities.

Related Articles

Get the news that matters.

Join thousands of readers getting the best of British news straight to their inbox.