World news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Court hears Palestine Action ban challenge compared with suffragette tactics
Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, is challenging the UK government’s decision to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation. Her lawyer told the Supreme Court that the ban unjustifiably restricts freedom of speech and protest, and argued that other protest movements, including the suffragettes, used comparable or more extreme tactics without being proscribed.
The Home Secretary’s lawyer said the ban was lawful and proportionate, citing convictions linked to an action at an Elbit Systems factory and US sanctions against the group. He argued that proscription does not prevent support for Palestinians or demonstrations against Israel or Elbit. At least 25 people were arrested at a protest outside the court; the hearing is due to conclude on Thursday, with a judgment expected later.
In short
- Palestine Action co-founder challenges the group’s proscription at the Supreme Court.
- Her lawyer says the ban chills free speech and protest.
- The government cites convictions and says the ban is proportionate.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A ban on Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation may impose an unjustifiably severe limit on political speech and protest, particularly if less restrictive measures could address unlawful acts. The comparison with past protest movements raises a question of consistency: disruptive or extreme tactics have not always led to proscription, and lawful criticism of the group’s targets or support for Palestinians should remain protected.
The case against
The government can argue that proscription is a lawful, proportionate response to the seriousness of conduct linked to the group, including convictions arising from an action at an Elbit Systems factory. On this view, the measure targets the organisation rather than political advocacy: people remain free to support Palestinians and protest against Israel or Elbit, while the state has a duty to respond to conduct it considers sufficiently dangerous.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Guardian as “Palestine Action activists used similar tactics to the suffragettes, court told”.