Palestine Action Ruling: The Need for Proportionate Terror Legislation

Last week, the High Court ruled that the Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action under terrorism legislation was unlawful. The judges were clear: while the group has engaged in criminal damage, it did not meet the very high legal threshold required to be branded a terrorist organisation.

From the beginning, the Liberal Democrats have argued that proscribing Palestine Action was disproportionate and a grave misuse of terrorism laws. Terrorism legislation exists to tackle the gravest threats to our national security. Stretching it to place Palestine Action in the same legal category as ISIS cannot be right and risked weakening public confidence in the very laws designed to keep us safe.

You can strongly disagree with some of the group’s tactics, such as the vandalism of military equipment and RAF aircraft, while still recognising that these actions must be held accountable under criminal law. They are serious offences, but they are not comparable to the horrors of terrorism.

What has concerned me most, and for many of those who have contacted me, are the images of more than 2,000 people being arrested under terrorism powers simply for holding signs at demonstrations. Free speech and the right to peaceful protest is at the cornerstone of our democracy, and throughout this debate, the Liberal Democrats have pressed for a proportionate approach. 

What’s clear is that this ruling does not excuse criminal behaviour - those responsible must face the full force of the law. But it reinforces that counterterror powers must be used carefully and without undermining the civil liberties of British citizens.