In a stunning legal setback for the government, the Court of Appeal has refused to block a challenge against the controversial ban on Palestine Action under terrorism laws. This decision opens the door for a High Court judge to review the ban as early as next month—a move that could have far-reaching implications for free speech and protest rights in the UK. But here’s where it gets controversial: while the government argues that Palestine Action’s activities threaten national security, critics claim the ban is an overreach of power aimed at silencing legitimate activism. Is this a necessary measure to protect the public, or a dangerous precedent for stifling dissent?
Earlier this year, Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, secured permission for a judicial review of the Home Secretary’s decision to ban the group. The ban, which came into effect on July 5, criminalizes membership or support for the organization, leading to the arrest of over 2,100 people during protests. Demonstrators have boldly declared, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action,” with 170 facing charges that could result in six months in jail. But is this a fair punishment for expressing solidarity with a cause, or a justified response to alleged criminal activity?
The government attempted to halt the judicial review, arguing that Parliament had established a specific—albeit slower—process for appealing banning orders. Under terrorism laws, groups can request to be ‘deproscribed’ through a lengthy Home Office review, followed by an appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC). This process can drag on for a year or more, leaving groups in legal limbo. Is this system designed to ensure fairness, or to deter challenges by making them prohibitively difficult?
Ammori’s lawyers countered that the ban’s unusual circumstances and the group’s widespread public support warranted an immediate High Court review. They argued that Parliament never explicitly ruled out a faster challenge process, despite creating the slower alternative. Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, agreed, stating that Ammori could lawfully challenge the ban without waiting for the POAC process. “Judicial review is a quicker and more authoritative means of determining the ban’s legality,” she ruled, adding that it could set a precedent for criminal cases against supporters of Palestine Action.
The Home Office has vowed to consider the ruling’s implications but insists Palestine Action remains a proscribed group. “Supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist group are not the same thing,” a spokesperson warned, emphasizing that backers of the group will “face the full force of the law.” Yet, Ammori argues the government’s attempt to avoid scrutiny has “backfired spectacularly,” as the Court of Appeal expanded the grounds on which she can challenge the ban. Is this a victory for justice, or a dangerous undermining of national security measures?
As the judicial review looms in November, Ammori has also won permission to present broader arguments against the ban’s legality. She calls the arrest of peaceful protesters and those disrupting the arms trade a “dangerous misuse of counter-terror resources.” But where do you stand? Is Palestine Action a legitimate advocacy group, or a threat that warrants suppression? And what does this case say about the balance between security and freedom in modern Britain? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
