ANNA STANLEY
Proscribing Palestine Action might seem like a win for law and order — and in many respects it is. But banning a group with such support in the UK exposes the fragility of our legal system, the limits of state authority and the deep divisions undermining social cohesion.
Through direct action and intimidation, Palestine Action targeted UK arms manufacturers linked to Israel — and in some cases, successfully shut them down. It also vandalised banks, attacked Jewish-owned businesses, and most infamously stormed RAF Brize Norton, the UK’s primary military airbase — an escalation that ultimately led to its classification as a terrorist group.
The state will move to target its organisers, freeze its funds and seize its assets. But the situation extends far beyond the group itself. On Saturday, police arrested more than 20 members of the public at a London protest opposing the ban — an indication that the proscription has already galvanised resistance.
Although hard to quantify exactly, estimates suggest tens of thousands of supporters in the UK. Before its accounts were shut down in July 2025, Palestine Action had a quarter of a million followers on X and regularly drew thousands to its protests. MP Richard Burgon said the legislation risked “criminalising thousands of volunteers and supporters”, including “students, nurses, retirees and professionals”, highlighting the diverse coalition backing the group and the potential for perceived overreach.
If these protests continue to grow, will the police attempt mass arrests of supporters? Both politically and practically, that seems unthinkable. The challenge now is not just about suppressing the group but about navigating the broader consequences for public dissent and civil liberties.
We’re entering dangerous territory: a law that exists on paper but is inconsistently enforced. Support of the group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Yet inconsistent enforcement — harsh on some, lenient or non-existent on others — undermines the credibility of counter-terrorism legislation and the very principle of equal justice. This breeds cynicism and resentment, especially among those who feel protected or targeted based on political alignment.
The issue becomes even sharper when considering elected officials. Some MPs openly supported Palestine Action prior to its proscription. Last week, MP Zara Sultana spoke in the House of Commons, declaring: “We are all Palestine Action.” If they were to publicly support the group now, would they realistically face investigation or prosecution, as ordinary members of the public might? It’s hard to imagine. This kind of selective enforcement not only fails to restore order but deepens divisions and makes a mockery of justice itself.
Such an enforcement gap emboldens supporters, signalling that illegal actions may go unpunished, encouraging them to view their conduct not as criminal, but as justified resistance. For many in Palestine Action, this mindset reframes tactics like vandalism or intimidation as part of a moral struggle against what they perceive as a genocidal, apartheid state. Actions such as targeting arms factories or storming company offices are cast as virtuous responses to alleged complicity in war crimes.
Of course, extremists and terrorists always believe their cause is just. This is not an argument for cultural relativism, but an acknowledgment of an uncomfortable reality: the sense of righteousness motivating Palestine Action and its supporters is no longer a fringe phenomenon. The narrative that Israel is committing genocide and enforcing apartheid has gained traction — or at least tacit acceptance — across significant segments of the mainstream, including in academia, the media, NGOs and even Parliament. This belief is no longer confined to the fringes; it now shapes public debate and motivates direct action, with real consequences for social cohesion and public order.
Against this backdrop, the Government’s proscription targeted Palestine Action’s illegal tactics — not free speech or the right to protest. But it failed to control how this distinction was portrayed in the media and by activist groups. As a result, many people who oppose vandalism and intimidation nevertheless ended up conflating the group’s illegal actions with legitimate protest. This ultimately weakens public trust and complicates enforcement efforts.
When the shared legitimacy of law breaks down — when large parts of society reject who is labelled criminal — the law’s power to govern is weakened. This reflects a deep political and cultural fracture that offers no easy solutions and demands difficult reckoning.
Proscribing Palestine Action was justified, but in a deeply divided country, the Government faces a minefield: enforce the law selectively and lose trust or enforce it strictly and risk unrest. There’s no easy answer, and every step risks deepening the very divisions that threaten public order.
This article (The Palestine Action Ban Was Right — But It’s Opened a Pandora’s Box) was created and published by Daily Sceptic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Anna Stanley
See Related Article Below
Bring back sedition
The old sedition laws are a tried and tested standard
SEBASTIAN MILBANK
An argument is raging over the proscription of the Palestine Action group as a terrorist organisation. On the one hand, defenders of the group argue that their actions were non-violent, amounting to nothing more than criminal damage and peaceful “direct action”. Terrorists, on this reading, are men with bombs, guns and knives, not kids who break into military bases with cans of spray paint. The other side of the argument points out that damage to military equipment threatens national security — if a hostile state sent individuals to wreck our fighter jets on the ground, it would be regarded as an act of war. Threats to the military, on this reading, are a red line and the government has to take a very hard stance against groups that target defence infrastructure.
Two things can be true — Palestine Action are obviously not a terrorist organisation, but it is just as true that any group that attempts to sabotage the military must be banned, dismantled and harshly deterred.
Modern governments are entangled in a tightening web of equalities and human rights law that increasingly floats free of the democratic and republican traditions that gave rise to it. If Britain is a free society, then attacks upon its army, and a refusal to participate through democratic avenues, are acts that do violence to the common good of all. A lack of reverence for the law and the sanctity of public institutions from attack represent a loss of common identity and civic responsibility. Human rights have become radically individualised claims asserted on behalf of private individuals, rather than the balance of duties, responsibilities and privileges enjoyed by free citizens living in common.
Sedition allows us to make very clear distinctions between protest and sedition.
In this context, states struggle to exert power legitimately in their own interest. As with France after the revolution, authority must be framed in terms of “public safety” — and it is perhaps no coincidence that political terror and public safety were born in the same instance from the revolution on behalf of the rights of man. In the 21st century, with rights culture again becoming an intractable barrier to a just and functional politics, governments are increasingly forced to create a kind of perpetual state of emergency; carving out an extra-legal space of action outside of otherwise restrictive frameworks. Counterterrorism legislation is the one method that the government turns to whether it is seeking to regulate the excesses of Islamic fundamentalism (through its Prevent programme), or cracking down on far-left activist groups trying to sabotage military equipment.
The issue is not only that we are misapplying terrorism legislation, but that in doing so we are implicitly endorsing a model of the state acting on behalf of the safety of a passive public, rather than responding to attacks upon the law and the nation itself.
There is another way. It feels significant that just as anti-terroism legislation was being implemented, the common law offence of sedition was being abolished. Sedition is a concept that dates back to the Roman Republic, referring to unlawful rebellion against legitimate authority. It has centuries of legal precedent and clear limits within English law, and extends beyond acts of violence to “an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom, as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty’s subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty’s subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects.”
This has a far broader application, but a much more precise aim, than counterterrorism and hate speech laws. It doesn’t apply at all to acts and words, however extreme, aimed at anything other than the British state and its laws and institutions. Rather it acts as a kind of aggravating factor for those who seek to plan, incite or enact crimes for the purpose of subverting lawful authority or undermining the state.
At its simplest, it is the crime of rebellion, and it allows us to make very clear distinctions between protest and sedition. A trade union that occupies a factory or intimidates strikebreakers may be engaging in extremely disruptive, even criminal protest, but it is not committing sedition. Nor does it apply to a peaceful protest group seeking to influence government policy. But a group, like Palestine Action, that engages in disruptive and criminal protest that targets national defence, and in its own words, seeks to “bypass our complicit government”, straightforwardly falls into the category of sedition. Not only that, but we can draw a very precise line where they cross from being a disruptive protest group that encourages lawlessness, to being a seditious organisation. Their primary aim — “direct action” against Israeli arms companies — is criminal but not seditious. Once they began targeting the RAF however, the interests of the British crown become directly involved, and a new, harsher legal response would be triggered.
Crucially the crime of sedition, unlike counterterrorism, can be prosecuted in an ordinary fashion by the CPS, rather than relying on ministers and parliament to make extremely politicised decisions about what is, and is not, terrorist activity. Moreover it allows far more finely grained regulation of incitement through the crime of seditious libel, with speech that incites rebellion subject to a well-understood common law offence with established checks and limits. This is the same legislation that was employed during the World Wars, and evolved alongside the emergence of universal suffrage, the rise of trade unions and expanding social freedoms. Sedition is a tried and tested standard whose loss has seen the rise of less accountable and more arbitrary laws that frequently intrude into areas untouched by the old laws.
This article (Bring back sedition) was created and published by The Critic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Sebastian Milbank
Featured image: Twitter
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply