Yvette Cooper, the UK Home Secretary, ignited a political firestorm when she moved to proscribe Palestine Action—a direct-action par- protest group—as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. This bold move has led to mass arrests, mounting legal battles, and intense condemnation. Now, as 60 more individuals are being charged with supporting the banned group, Cooper remains resolute in defending her decision. But is the government safeguarding national security—or silencing dissent?
The Ban: What Happened and Why?
Founded in 2020, Palestine Action is known for staging disruptive, symbolic protests against companies linked to Israel’s military capabilities, including spray-painting equipment and breaking into facilities In June 2025, the group’s activists vandalised two RAF Voyager aircraft at Brize Norton, causing an estimated £7 million in damage.In response, Cooper pushed through legislation to add Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisations. This made membership or support a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Mass Arrests and New Prosecutions
Since the ban took effect on 5 July 2025, more than 700 people have been arrested in national protests. A staggering 532 arrests took place during a single demonstration in Parliament Square—marking the largest mobilised arrest operation in recent memory.Now, law enforcement has announced that 60 additional individuals will face charges under the Terrorism Act for showing support or solidarity with the group.Among the three earlier defendants—those already charged—were attendees from previous demonstrations.
Home Secretary’s Defiant Defense
Cooper has been unwavering in her stance. She insists that Palestine Action has demonstrated an “escalating campaign” of criminality, not peaceful protest, and justifies the ban as essential to public safety.In her Observer op-ed she warns that continued inaction in the face of planned future violence would be a breach of her duty to protect the public.According to the Home Office, free speech remains intact, but violent criminality—especially orchestrated or ideologically motivated—isn’t protected just because the cause is deemed noble.
Legal Challenges and Allegations of Media Spin
Palestine Action’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, has secured permission to launch a judicial review, with marginalized civil liberties and free speech at the center of the challenge.Her legal team has accused Cooper of running a “cynical media campaign”, claiming she misrepresented the factual basis for the ban. They argue that public statements alleging future violent attacks went beyond what was disclosed in court, which centered solely on property damage—not threats to people
Voices from the Streets: Protesters Speak Out
Many arrested are elder citizens, including clergy, retirees, and military veterans, who insist they were acting on conscience—peacefully and within their rights. Yet all now face heavy terrorism charges
Deborah Hinton, 81, a former magistrate, compared Palestine Action to historical civil rights groups and denounced the terrorism label as ludicrous.
Father John McGowan, 75, likened the government’s approach to silencing innocent dissent and criticized the prosecution of those acting on moral conviction.
Colonel Chris Romberg, also arrested, warned that distrust in government is deepening, especially when authorities invoke secret evidence to justify state action.
National and International Backlash
Prominent civil liberties organisations—including Amnesty International, Liberty, and the UN’s Human Rights Office—have condemned the ban as disproportionate and chilling for democratic protest.The UN’s human rights chief called the ban a “disturbing misuse” of anti-terror laws.
Separately, renowned novelist Sally Rooney came under fire after pledging book royalties to support Palestine Action, prompting demands for the BBC to sever ties, despite her not being a staff member.
Why This Matters
This controversy sits at the intersection of national security and civil liberties. Critics argue it sets a dangerous precedent: could activism be condemned as terrorism if it ventures into symbolic civil disobedience? At a time when global tensions over Gaza are inflamed, the UK’s move raises critical questions:
- Are we undermining democratic principle and the right to dissent by labeling protest as terrorism?
- Or is the government fulfilling its duty to prevent actions that may escalate to violence or damage?