Is Palestine Action really a terrorist group?

0:00We all have routines. I'm Jabron, and with diabetes, mine was finger sticks. Sometimes, I skip them because it hurt. The Freestyle Libre 3CGM changed that. It gives me glucose insights without finger sticks. Learn more at freestyllibre.us. Finger sticks are required if your glucose alarms or readings do not match symptoms, or when you see check blood glucose symbol for the first 12 hours. The views expressed should not be used for medical diagnosis or treatment as a substitute for professional medical advice. Individual circumstances may vary. For prescription only. Safety info found at freestyllibre.us.

0:31This is a Global Player original podcast.

0:44Jon Sopel:The chants of shame on you are protesters furious at police arresting a disabled blind protester who was in support of Palestine action. Hundreds of people have been arrested since the organisation was prescribed. This group has been staging direct actions in the name of Palestine for months. In July, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, banned it, saying it was a terrorist organisation. Given that it wasn't threatening anyone with violence, can that be right? And can it be right still that hundreds of people protesting peaceably have been arrested for supporting them? Welcome to The News Agents.

1:38The News Agents. It's John. It's Lewis. And some background on this, in case you've not been following it in great detail. It's only really been a story for about a month or so. This goes back to July, so last month. In July, the government officially proscribed Palestine action, i.e. they banned it, as a terrorist group under the Terrorism Act of 2000. Vett Cooper, the Home Secretary, citing its involvement in vandalism at RAF, Bryce Norton, a military base, and other direct action protests where they'd broken in and caused damage. And the government said had been threatening to those places.

2:13Since then, over 700 people have been arrested, not for being involved directly in the group or being involved in any other direct action, but instead for showing support for the group as akin with that legislation. So many arrests tied up to peaceful demonstrations with people holding up signs, reading things like, I oppose genocide, I support Palestine action. As recently as the 9th of August, so what, 10 days ago, during a protest in Parliament Square, around 500 demonstrators were initially arrested. That's the largest single day hall in over a decade. That number later rose to 532. And it's not just in London.

2:56There have been protests up and down the country. The Home Secretary, for her part, has defended the ban. She said in an article in The Observer on Sunday, the clear advice and intelligence given to me earlier this year from the UK's world-leading counter-terrorism system was that Palestine action satisfies the relevant tests in this Terrorism Act. For a Home Secretary to ignore all those security assessments advice would be irresponsible. And she said there are things that she knows that she cannot reveal which further justify the prescription of Palestine action.

3:29Jon Sopel:So this is where it gets complicated, because my suspicion is that of those 500 and however many people who were arrested following the protest, they want to see action about Palestine. There is a distinction there between kind of being concerned about everything that is unfolding in Gaza and actually supporting the group. And I suspect that many of those people are just really, really concerned that voices are not being heard and you've got the right to protest and prescribing groups that look like they are raising issues about Gaza shouldn't be banned. And I suspect they're less interested in some of the things that Palestine action have done.

4:12Jon Sopel:And of course, one of the things that led to the Home Secretary talking about the need to prescribe was the alleged break in at a defence systems company in Bristol in August 2024, Elbit Systems UK, which I think is an Israeli defence firm, but, you know, operating perfectly legally in Britain. and 18 people have since been charged which are denied including criminal damage assault causing actual bodily harm violent disorder and aggravated burglary and of course because that is going through the courts there's a limitations of what the home secretary can say because she might prejudice any subsequent trial that is due to take place yes that is all true but nonetheless it is also true that the prescription the prohibition of palestine action is unusual even under the terrorism legislation and this is why it's controversial it's not just because you're seeing 500 700 people who are clearly peaceful often little old ladies or you know like people who would not normally be associated with terrorism you know being arrested on the streets of london number one most groups which have been prescribed in the past are foreign linked terrorist organizations so it's like isis al-qaeda hamas hezbollah and it is therefore unusual and it gets people's backs up or at the very least people are curious as to why a group like this which is not involved in anything like that which has not threatened violence against people would be prescribed the uk ones which have been prescribed in the past have generally been involved in the northern ireland conflict so like the uvf or the ira or whatever it happens to be palestine action banning it is unusual because it's a homegrown movement whose stated goal is political activism through direct action rather than through armed conflict or threatening people individual with violence.

6:00And the argument therefore is, is that given that prescription has typically been applied to groups which are linked to serious violence and serious threats to life, and Palestine actions involve property damage and sabotage, albeit with a political intent and against government property and military bases and so on, that therefore that is unusual and that therefore the prescription has been applied unduly harshly. And a net result, whether you think, and I think this is the political problem for the government whether you think that prescription is right or not what it has led to is a political optics problem which is you end up a really big problem which is you end up with people who are protesting peaceably people who clearly when you look at them you would not imagine would be involved in a terrorist group however nice or unpleasant as that is to say it is just a fact being arrested en masse and the critique that can be made whether this is fair or not is that the government is trying to oppress dissent and dissatisfaction about the palestine issue because what is in their name palestine action and that is a big optics problem political problem if nothing else for a government where this issue splits the labour

7:11Jon Sopel:party right down the middle yeah well i mean arguably it doesn't split it right down no well no that's it to you know two thirds three quarters are against the prescription of palestine action And you've had the Labour MP Stella Creasy and Labour peer Lord Hayne and Peter Hayne, you know, in his heyday was very active in the anti-apartheid movement and direct action and interrupting cricket laws during one test match have written to The Guardian today calling for urgent police guidance to be issued to head off the car crash. I'm quoting, that prescription enforcement is rapidly becoming. And they said, you know, going after people with a poster testing the boundaries of liberty, some who may or may not even support Palestine action, but feel strongly about Palestinian rights, confuses rather than clarifies the government's intention.

8:01Jon Sopel:People must be able to protest about the horror in Gaza and the focus should be on what is happening in Palestine, not in Parliament Square. Now, these are two big names in the Labour Party who've come out and said, look, you know, whatever the rights and wrongs of Palestine action, the way this is being enforced is just leading to a hemorrhage and a kind of a deeper fissure in Britain about what is the right of free speech and what is not. and surely, you know, a little old lady holding a Palestine action poster. Or a priest, a vicar who's been arrested. Or a priest or a victor. Or the engineer from Brighton who had printed a T-shirt with very similar lettering to Palestine action, but it said, Plasticine action.

8:46Yeah, I think this is a nightmare for the police because they have their obligations under the law. And look, the law is clear, and maybe this is a good opportunity for us as a country to think about actually just how much power the government has, which we probably would not have if we had a system like the United States with a set of constitutional rights, how much power the government has here to define what protest is and what is a terrorist group and what's a direct action group. Because the Terrorism Act 2000, which was passed before 9-11, so it's even before the kind of heyday of that, is very, very broad.

9:16It gives the Home Secretary enormous powers, basically, to define what a terrorist group and what isn't. And on the basis of the Act, I don't think there's any doubt that she can say that it is. So the Terrorism Act says that the action has to involve either serious violence against a person, serious damage to property. Well, tick. And that the use of that threat is designed to influence the government or an international government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Well, it's definitely designed to influence the government. And the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, ideological cause.

9:47Well, again, tick, tick, tick. So under the legislation, there's no doubt that Yvette Cooper can say, yeah, this is a terrorist group. The question is whether she ought to have that power and whether she has, and even if we don't want to get into that slightly more abstract question, has she used that power, that discretion that she has wisely? And I think that there is a real question as to whether she has used that power wisely because she must have known that the net result of this would be that people who are not involved with the group, but who are expressing support for the group, which can be elided with support for Palestine itself, would be getting arrested and the consequences we've seen ensue.

10:22Jon Sopel:Look, given the sensitivities, the polarisation, the very deep feelings that there are about the Gaza issue on both sides, you would have thought that the communication of this would have been better in the sense that, OK, I'm sure there are things she cannot say because of national security grounds or it's classified or whatever it happens to be. It's Intel from MI5 and they don't want it made put into the public domain for whatever reason. Yeah, I accept all of that. Government cannot be totally open all the time. But on something as sensitive as prescribing Palestine action, then you need to make your case better.

11:06Jon Sopel:And you need to have called in the key people and taken them through it and said, this is why we are doing what we are doing. This is why we need you to support us. It will be controversial. And it also needed a communication with the police about how to sensitively handle these things, because the police see a law being passed. What do you do? Their job is to enforce. And I kind of thought it at the time of the coronation. And it was the kind of the Republican groups who were going to be singled out and arrested. And I just thought, you know, yeah, I know, but we've got a right to protest in this country and let's not be too silly about it.

11:44I just do not think, whatever you think about the group itself, the optics for Britain as a democracy of seeing these people hauled away for what at least ostensibly appears pretty innocuous. And the group is definitely, if we accept that it's a terrorist group, it's on the very lower end of the sort of things that those groups do, is a terrible look for British democracy. and it's getting noticed around the world. And not only is it a terrible look, but it also potentially empowers exactly the sort of people who we would not want to empower. And I'm talking, for example, about far-right groups, far-right groups who are prescribed under the current legislation.

12:23Why? Because they get to say, ah, look, you see, we told you. We told you. This is what the British state does. When it doesn't like something, when it's got a group that it doesn't agree with, it doesn't talk to them, it doesn't reason with them, it brooks no dissent. It allows no dissent. And that's true on the left and that's true on the right. And it legitimises their idea that these people that are being prosecuted and that are being discriminated against and being oppressed and being driven underground. So I think that is the danger with it, that it makes it look like the British government will not allow dissent on something that it dislikes.

12:57And on an issue as sort of hot as this, as you say, John, as contentious as this, it's a real, real problem. I think maybe the case would have been to look at the legislation to say, look, OK, maybe this group does need to be prescribed. And it would have been far better, as you say, if Yvette Cooper had been more open in the 21st century. I think you just have to be. People aren't just going to accept it because the state says it. Trust me, I'm a politician.

13:18Jon Sopel:It's not great. Does that mean that everybody who turns up with a placard that is expressing some support for that group, should they be arrested? I'm not so sure. Just as an aside, I just want to travel down a little byway, a little tiny lane for a moment. to say that I haven't noticed much opposition to the prescribing of Palestine action from those free speech warriors like J.D. Vance and the State Department. They seem to be quite comfortable with that bit of legislation that this government has passed and haven't spoken about that. Whereas if you're protesting outside an abortion clinic...

13:52Jon Sopel:Well, quite so. I mean, that's always the same thing. It's always the same thing with these things. It's free speech as long as I agree with it. That's what's important. But I mean, I do think on the left and right, there probably ought to be a bit more of a sort of... A bit more introspection about that question, because it is true, you know, if if this were like a far right Tommy Robinson type thuggery group, would I be sat here and be as bothered about it? No, like if they were doing exactly what Palestine Action had done, if I ask myself, honestly, would I be bothered about them being prescribed?

14:19No, I wouldn't be. So I think that, you know, the truth is, is that with all of these things, I actually think generally we need to be erring on the side of being libertarian about free speech in all manners, in all areas. even this isn't just about free speech because they're committing violence and so on but generally speaking i think we all need to ask ourselves searching questions about whether we agree with the group or if it being prescribed or whatever it happens to be just because we disagree

14:46Jon Sopel:with them or otherwise i i think it's really complicated because i think that you know on the threshold of the act as it is currently and exactly as you set out louis when you went through the detail of what you know leads to a tick against the name of palestine action Palestine action probably have done some pretty bad things it's not putting people in orange jumpsuits I mean it's not that but it's still on the side of where you think okay they should be prescribed but then when you get people coming out little old ladies and vicars coming out and holding a placard there needs to be a degree of sensitivity about are these terrorist enablers no they're not and the policing of this needs to be sensible but you know the police are then left in a bloody impossible position.

15:27Jon Sopel:They're there to enforce the laws of the land. Right, well, after this, we're going to be speaking to Sir Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who has said today that the prescription of Palestine action ought to be reviewed. Stay with us.

15:45This is Ashley Akinetti from the Ben and Ashley I Almost Famous podcast. Ben, I've been reflecting a lot lately on how many big life moments our listeners have experienced with us. Yeah, it's pretty wild. They've watched us go from dating shows to engagements, weddings, babies, buying homes. Every stage comes with new decisions. The milestones are the fun part, but the planning is where things get real. That's why Klarna stands out. Klarna gives people smarter tools to help manage everyday money with flexible ways to pay, cash back that builds automatically, everything in one place, and support that makes everyday decisions feel less overwhelming.

16:26Since life moves so fast, the right tools can help you feel more confident. Download the Klarna app today or visit Klarna.com to learn more.

16:36Jon Sopel:California resident loans made or arranged pursuant to a California finance law license, NMLS number 1353190. Klarna balance account required to be eligible for cashback points. Limitations, terms and conditions apply. This is The News Agents. And we are joined now by the Liberal Democrat leader, Sered Davy. Thank you for being on the news, Agents. You've said that the terrorism legislation needs to be reviewed. You abstained when it came to the Commons. Why? Well, we raise our concerns when the government was pushing this through. They, I think, abused process by adding to the piece of legislation two organisations which clearly should be prescribed, but we couldn't amend it.

17:17So Lisa Smart, the home affairs spokesperson, set out why we felt that Palestine Action, while it was a criminal group who had committed damage to property, including military sites, that we were not convinced by what the government said, that they met the bar of being prescribed under terrorism legislation. So we've initiated right from the start, we've expressed our concerns. And then, of course, we saw those protests, those peaceful protests in Parliament Square when so many people were arrested, the police doing the job that they've been asked to do, but were arrested for essentially wearing T-shirts and the like with the name Palestine Action.

18:00And I think many people looking at those images said, come on, these people are exercising freedom of speech. They are peacefully processing. This is not the way the terrorism legislation was originally intended for. And that's why the Democrats have raised this. And we've contacted the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and asked him to look at it.

18:22Jon Sopel:So just let me go back a tiny bit. You abstained in the Commons because you felt the government hadn't made the case. Ed Davey, you're a member of the Privy Council. Isn't this exactly the type of issue where the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, would say, come and have a chat on Privy Council terms so that you can understand better why we are doing what we're doing? Our Home Affairs spokesperson, Lisa Smart, did get a briefing, but she wasn't convinced even with a briefing. Now, maybe she wasn't told everything. Who knows? But we have had that briefing. And you've got to be really careful when you prescribe groups, particularly the way the terrorism legislation works.

19:02works i mean essentially the people who were arrested in parliament square weren't all members of palestine palestine action let's remember they just were wearing clothing which had that name on indeed one person got arrested because he had a t-shirt saying plasticine action you know so this is the problem that the terrorism legislation has created and i think we do need to have a balance here. Of course, we need to crack down on terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIS and so on. Liberal Democrats have been firmly behind that legislation and the action of the police and the security services against those terrorist organizations.

19:43But in this situation, we are unconvinced that the bar was cleared on Palestine action. And the way it has then turned out that people just exercising their democratic rights have been arrested, I think that should make us all really worried. But couldn't the Home Secretary have been accused of double standards if she hadn't done this? I mean, for example, the Terrorism Act defines terrorism to include serious damage to property carried out for political ends. Now, there's no doubt that that has occurred. You know, these people, the people not with placards, but the people who have attacked British military installations, they've broken into factories, they've damaged sites, even RAF bases.

20:20If someone associated with, say, ISIS did that, or Al-Qaeda did that, Or a far right group or the Football Lads Alliance or someone like this, these groups which have been prescribed did that, would say they were terrorists, wouldn't we? Well, first of all, those actions by a Palestine action were completely wrong. They were acts of crime and they could be and should be dealt with very, very hard, punished hard. But you don't need to use terrorist legislation to do that. And therefore, when you talk about Arqaida and ISIS, I think everyone is really clear. they more than met the bar for being a terrorist organization were rightly prescribed.

20:59UVF, Football Lads Alliance, far right. I mean, there are different sorts of groups who aren't as bad as those that you just mentioned. Well, there's a lot of groups who need to be monitored and watched and punished when they commit crimes, but they aren't all designated as terrorist organizations under the terrorism legislation. And there has to be a proper debate on each individual case. And the problem is the way the government did it. they had two organizations that we weren't disputing that should be prescribed and they linked in Palestine Action where they we don't felt they made the case seriously and properly and fully and so yeah we think this needs to be looked at absolutely.

21:38But when activists break into an RAF base or an arms factory there's a real risk to the people who work there and they're doing it for political reasons and normally when we associate violence or political violence with the name of a cause, which is what these people are doing, we describe it as terrorism? Well, I think the criminal acts that are committed by members of Palestine Action should be punished very, very civilly. I don't think that's a question. Liberal Democrats have made that really clear throughout. And it was serious because it was against a military base. And we couldn't have been more open about our desire to see these people punished.

22:13But I really don't think the government has yet made the case that that results in them being prescribed as a terrorist organisation.

22:22Jon Sopel:OK, so if you say it is criminal, there is a case going through the courts. It concerns an alleged Palestine action raid onto Elbit Systems UK in Bristol, an Israeli defence firm but operating legally in the UK. And 18 people are denying charges, including criminal damage, assault causing actual bodily harm, violent disorder and aggravated burglary. Now, you know, the allegations are that this was motivated by political differences and not criminal intent. It's not like they wanted to nick something and then flog it on the black market. It was politically motivated. Yes, but you I think you were making my case that these people can be prosecuted under existing legislation.

23:08And that's quite that. That's quite right.

23:10Jon Sopel:But the point is, it's not conventional criminal activity. it is politically driven in support of a cause it's not the usual criminal code well first of all i do think the criminal code comes into play and secondly i would argue that there is political activity uh that is different from terrorist activity i'm sure there has been political activity over many decades which no one would describe as terrorism and i think there is a clear distinction that is why let's be clear what we have done we have asked the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hill, QC, to look at this. And let's have a debate about where this line should be drawn, because I don't think it is really clear enough in the legislation, and that's why I think this review is required.

23:58Jon Sopel:And on Sally Rooney, should she be prosecuted if she comes to Britain and says what she said, you know, to an Irish newspaper? I don't know all the details of what she said to an Irish newspaper. Let's see other people who are... Well, she said she wants to continue to support them financially. Well, I don't know which different law would be applied. I don't think a terrorism law should be used in this case. That's why we have been concerned about the prescription. And just on one other thing, obviously, the Prime Minister has been in Washington and been at that extraordinary sort of almost summit at the White House.