Banning Palestine Action: How the UK Government is Silencing Dissent

The proscription of Palestine Action will come into effect on Saturday unless the High Court issues a temporary block on the order today. On Wednesday, MPs voted for the direct action group to be classified as a terrrorist organisation meaning that it will be a criminal offence to be a member of the group and “to invite or recklessly express support for them”. Both of these can be punished by up to 14 years in prison. This decision has huge implications, not only for those who support Palestine Action’s objectives, but for everyone in the UK who wants to view and engage with content about Palestine online.

It marks a dangerous escalation in the criminalisation of political dissent in the UK and represents an increase in the UK’s architecture of surveillance. It will impact on other areas of digital and counter-terror policy, including the Prevent Duty and the Online Safety Act.

Who are Palestine Action?

Palestine Action are a direct action group “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”. Last month, the group came to wider public attention after four of its members broke into RAF Brize Norton and sprayed red paint on the turbines of two Voyager aircraft.
As well as military targets, the group have also targeted factories and buildings associated with Elbit Systems, an Israeli weapons manufacturer. The Home Secretary told parliament that Palestine Action’s
“activity has increased in frequency and severity since the start of 2024 and its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence”. While she could not comment on ongoing criminal cases, she referred to the group’s attack on a factory in Glasgow where a smoke bomb was thrown towards staff who were evacuating from the premises. The group have also been accused of anti-semitism after they daubed ‘Happy Nakba Day’ on a Jewish business in a Jewish area of Manchester.

Critics have argued that despite breaking criminal laws, the group’s actions do not meet the threshold for terrorism. Three academics writing in Open Democracy argue: “Direct action protest, such as that carried out by Palestine Action, may involve crossing a line of criminality to disrupt or bring attention to activity that groups believe is causing greater societal harm. Committing a crime does not make a protest group’s actions terrorism and there are dangers in applying counter-terrorism powers in this context.”

Proscribing Palestine Action puts the group in the same category as Boko Haram, ISIS and the Wagner Group rather than groups such as CND or Trident Ploughshares who have taken similar actions, including damaging military installations and equipment. As Zarah Sultana MP noted in parliament, it was the Prime Minister in his time as a human rights lawyer who successfully defended a man who broke into RAF Fairford to prevent what they believed were war crimes in Iraq.

Proscribing Palestine Action as terrorists is not about public safety – it is about suppressing protest that we may disagree or agree with, but that stands well short of being an attempt to strike fear into the British public through the use of indiscriminate violence against people. In equating support of damage to military property and businesses with support of terrorism, it endangers legitimate debate about the UK-Israel arms trade.

What the proscription of Palestine Action may mean for Prevent

Under the Prevent Duty, public sector workers, such as teachers and healthcare workers are obliged to report individuals they suspect of being drawn into “extremism.” But what counts as “extremism” is vague and open to subjective opinion, and there is evidence that Muslim communities are disproportionately targeted. Since the October 7 attacks, there have been concerns that the Prevent Duty is being used to suppress pro-Palestinian speech. Examples of overreach include a student being visited by the police simply for tweeting ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’.

Despite claims that Prevent is about safeguarding, in reality, it is often used to criminalise people, the majority of whom are children. It is used to target people, not for what they’ve done, but for what they might do in the future, based on beliefs, identity and political expression. With Palestine Action now proscribed as a terrorist group, young people, Muslims and racialised communities – among many others – are likely to face a heightened risk of being referred to the Prevent Duty and subsequently being criminalised, simply for engaging in the Palestine solidarity movement.

The Online Safety Act: A New Tool for Suppression

The Online Safety Act intersects with the government’s approach to counter-terror where it compels tech companies to monitor and remove “terrorist content.” With Palestine Action now proscribed as a “terrorist organisation,” social media platforms will be obliged to assess whether they need to take down content related to the group, their beliefs and actions. Exactly how Ofcom and the companies interpret the OSA and duties to act against illegal material will be a serious test of the Act’s ability to protect free expression.

We are likely to see a spike in takedowns of protest footage, commentary and expressions of solidarity with Palestine. As with the Prevent Duty, Palestinian voices and those who support them are those that will be silenced.

It is important to recognise that pro-Palestinian content is already heavily moderated and removed from major platforms, including Instagram, TikTok and YouTube. The proscription of Palestine Action will only entrench this censorship of the Palestinian liberation movement, obscure the UK’s direct involvement in Israel’s attacks on Gaza and restrict public debate about this important issue.

This is made worse by Ofcom’s advice that platforms can avoid worrying about Online Safety Act duties, if they ensure they are more censorious than the Act requires (known as the “bypass strategy”).

The Bigger Picture: Criminalising Solidarity and Dissent

The proscription of Palestine Action is not about safety – it is about power. It is part of a broader pattern of successive administrations to use surveillance and counter-terrorism laws to inhibit movements and marginalise people that challenge government policies.

At the heart of this is the logic of ‘pre-crime’ – the belief that the state should intervene not just against unlawful acts, but against political belief and expression that might become threatening. This logic turns activism into extremism and the legitimate demand for Palestinian freedom into a “national security threat.”

And while today it is Palestine Action, tomorrow it could be climate defenders, trade unionists or refugee rights campaigners. This is not just about one group, but about the growing use of terrorism and other over-reaching powers to silence dissent and suppress movements or groups that challenge the status quo.

As there is no public evidence of any link to terrorism or support of terrorist groups from Palestine Action, Open Rights Group supported their decision to appeal proscription. We do not condone behaviour that intimidates or physically harms members of the public but the UK has an abundance of laws to address this. Proscribing Palestine Action is an escalation of attacks on the right to protest and moves the boundary of what terrorism actually is. As a Times editorial critical of the government’s decision points out: “The heavy-handed branding of Palestine Action as terrorists risks seeming absurd when ­bona fide hostile military groupings like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remain ­unproscribed.”

Meanwhile a vital debate about the role of the UK in Israel’s is undermined. We must continue to defend attacks on our right to protest and tthe right o receive information and express ourselves online.

Note: This blog has been updated to make it clear that Palestine Action has targeted businesses as well as military installations, to add further context about proscription and to clarify that ORG opposes actions that physically harm or intimidate people.