Criminalising Resistance: Is the Terrorism Label Being Politically Weaponised?A legal analysis of the proscription of Palestine Action in the United Kingdom

Eva Ryall

Introduction: A Dangerous Precedent for Democracy

On the 5^th of July 2025, the UK government officially proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Known for its non-violent direct action in protest of UK-based arms manufacturers linked to Israel, Palestine Action now shares a legal status with internationally recognised terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

This decision has raised urgent legal and ethical questions and a high level of criticism from UN experts about what they call “an unjustified labelling of a political protest movement as terrorist.” At its core lies the startling question: Is the UK government weaponising anti-terrorism legislation in order to suppress political dissent, particularly in relation to public solidarity with Palestine?

The implications for democracy, free expression, and the right to protest are profound.

Legal Basis for Proscription: The Terrorism Act 2000

The proscription was enacted under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which permits the Home Secretary to place a ban on any group they believe is "concerned in terrorism", where proscription is "necessary" for public protection in light of public security concerns.

The Definition of Terrorism (Section 1)

The Act defines terrorism as follows:

“The use or threat of action designed to influence the government or intimidate the public… for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause… involving serious violence, serious damage to property, endangerment of life, or creating a serious risk to public health or safety.”

However, this definition has been widely criticised for its ambiguity, allowing for non-violent disruption or property damage to fall under the scope of terrorism, an issue civil rights groups like Liberty have warned about for years.

What Proscription Means in Practice

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, proscription carries serious consequences. Once a group is proscribed: Under Section 12, it is a criminal offence to belong to, support, or express an opinion or belief that implies support for the group. Under Section 13, it is an offence to wear clothing or display articles that “arouse reasonable suspicion” of membership or support. In Pwr v DPP [2022], it was ruled that Section 13(1) was in fact a strict liability offence, adjudicating that the defendant must be aware that they are displaying the article, but not necessarily that the organisation is proscribed or that their action will arouse suspicion, hence not requiring mens rea, hence broadening the scope of liability under the Act. Under sections 11 and 12 of the Act, the penalties for proscription offences are a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or a fine.

Since the proscription of Palestine Action, more than 2,100 people have been arrested. On the 6^th of September alone, 857 arrests were made on the basis of ‘showing support’, many for wearing t-shirts, badges, or carrying placards. Those detained were non-violent, among them a human rights lawyer, priests and descendants of Holocaust survivors who were expressing opposition to the proscription. This exemplifies the seriousness of proscription’s reach, revealing how the sovereignty of domestic law under the broad definition of the Terrorism Act allows the state to supersede international human rights law. These legitimate national security powers have thus been weaponised to blur the lines between public protection and peaceful dissent.

The Chilling Effect on Peaceful Protest

This crackdown strikes at the heart of the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantee:

• Freedom of expression, and

• Freedom of peaceful assembly.

  
  

The ECtHR has consistently held that even disruptive or provocative protest is to be protected, given that it does not incite physical violence or hatred. However, by targeting peaceful demonstrators, the government is conflating civil disobedience with terrorism, setting a dangerous precedent for democratic freedom. Such implications include the politicisation of anti-terror law, the deterrence of legitimate protest and the eroding of public trust in the rule of law.Amnesty International UK, concerned by the ‘UK authorities' willingness to use authoritarian practices to silence dissent’ has reiterated that these peaceful demonstrations are protected by International Human Rights Law.

The Northern Ireland Parallel: Historical Warnings

The use of terrorism legislation against peaceful protest is not an unfamiliar topic from the history of Northern Ireland.

During The Troubles, the British state routinely utilised counter-terror legislation to:

• Suppress peaceful civil rights movements,

• Intern individuals, particularly civil rights activists without trial,

• Demonise peaceful protest as subversion.

  
  

The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) was often treated as a national security threat simply for protesting inequal rights. Today, the criminalisation of Palestine Action mirrors that history, especially with reference to the delegitimisation of genuine non-violent political resistance. When protest is viewed through the lens of terrorism, democracy becomes authoritarianism in disguise. The lessons from Northern Ireland are clear: overreaching counter-terror laws do not guarantee security, they in fact deepen division.

Political Hypocrisy: The UK’s Hollow Gesture of Recognition

Just this September, the UK formally recognised the State of Palestine. Yet, it has now criminalised one of its most fundamental advocacy groups. The hypocrisy is staggering: On one hand, the UK claims to support Palestinian statehood. On the other, meaningful solidarity is punishable by law, justifying the arrest of citizens for protesting what the UN has now officially declared as genocide. Supporting Palestine and condemning complicity in the face of genocide and apartheid should not be a criminal act, but a moral imperative in light of recent findings.

The proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist group sends a clear message from the UK Government: solidarity with Palestine is only tolerated, but only if it remains silent.

Diluting the Meaning of Terrorism

Equating peaceful demonstration with terrorism has serious legal and societal consequences: It erodes the original legal meaning of the term, diverts attention from actual threats to national security and ultimately dismisses moral opposition to oppression and state violence.

If a student in an “I Oppose Genocide” shirt, an elderly citizen with a placard, or a protestor handing out leaflets can be arrested as a terrorist, the word ‘terrorist’ itself begins to lose its credibility and legitimacy.

Real terrorists are not handing out leaflets, and if the law treats them the same, it fails to protect anyone, a distinction which the law must reflect.

Reform Proposals: Restoring Proportionality and Legitimacy

This moment demands urgent legal and democratic reflection. To prevent further overreach, the legal definition of terrorism ought to be narrowed. An amendment in the law to require clear evidence of harm, rather than mere support could prevent the arrests of non-violent, innocent protesters exercising their right to free speech. According to international standards, terrorist acts ought to be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury or to acts such as the taking of hostages, all for a purpose of intimidating a population or government. Hence, the proscription of a direct-action organisation means that those who have not themselves engaged in any criminal activity, but have merely exercised their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association face “the full force of the law”.

Under terrorism legislation, it is possible for a proscribed organisation to apply to be removed from the list (“deproscribed”), but the process is often protracted and rarely successful given the wide discretion afforded to the Home Secretary. As an alternative remedy, the courts have granted a judicial review of the decision to proscribe Palestine Action, enabling the High Court to determine the lawfulness of the ban. The outcome of that ruling could set an important precedent and may be invoked in subsequent proceedings involving individuals charged in connection with alleged support for the group, outlining the importance of strategic litigation.

Conclusion: Peaceful Protest is Not Terrorism

The UK government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action is a clear misuse of counter-terror powers. While violent extremism ought to be condemned, so too must the criminalisation of moral resistance. The proscription of Palestine Action is not a reflection of a genuine national security concern, it is the political suppression of dissent.

History, especially that of Northern Ireland, warns of the long-term damage of the use of state power to silence public outrage. It reminds us that overreach breeds unrest, not security.

In a true democracy, the right to protest is not a threat to national security. It is a vital safeguard against the misuse of power.