Il divieto del Regno Unito all’azione contro la Palestina è illegale, lo pronunciano i giudici dell’Alta Corte
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/13/uk-ban-palestine-action-unlawful-high-court-judges-rule?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
di BarbaricOklahoma
11 commenti
Wonder if people defending arresting pensioners for holding signs will apologise and shut up. Somehow doubt it.
Good. They are civilly disobedient, not terrorists.
Good!
Individuals who break the law need to be prosecuted, not proscribe an entire group advocating for peace as terrorists.
The ban is still in place pending an appeal, so I suspect a lot of people will be arrested tomorrow
Will the government face any consequence from arresting hundreds of peaceful protesters?
It really didn’t need a high court judge to work that out but glad they have!
Bad day for the centrist liberals their two favourite things of proscribing anyone who threatens the status quo and blindly following laws and rulings without question going against each other is gonna make their heads spin
Ooft. The group that jumped over a wooden picket fence less than a meter high that was **THE MOST IMPORTANT AND PRIZED ASSET IN THE UK AIR FORCE AND HENCE PROTECTED BY INCREDIBLY ROBUST SECURITY MEASURES** and then splashed paint over an empty plane is **NOT** a terrorist organization? Oh. Wow.
You can find the full judgment, and a press release summary [here](https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/huda-ammori-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-3/) for those interested.
I haven’t read the judgment in full, but from the press release the key part seems to be this:
> Overall, however the court considered that the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate. A very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 Act. For these, and for Palestine Action’s other criminal activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.
Yes, Palestine Action was doing some terrorism. It was doing violent protest that is not protected in law, and the criminal justice system can deal with that. But most of what it was doing was non-violent, otherwise-lawful protest. If they were *just* doing terrorism, then banning them might be fine.
As others have noted, though, they are still banned for now, pending a decision on remedies and appeals.
If the government are smart they’ll accept the ruling and not try to fight it.
This has clearly blown up in the government’s face in a way i doubt they expected. I don’t think they thought they’d be arresting pensioners for holding signs. This gives them an out and they should take it
The whole terrorism act needs to be relooked at in the light of this. The definition of terrorism is ludicrously broad
> The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
>The specific actions included are:
>- serious violence against a person;
>- serious damage to property;
>- endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action);
>- creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
>- action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
So if you are in the same organisation as someone who causes property damage or disrupts an electronic system you are in a terrorist organisation.
It devalues the word terrorist which ought to be reserved as one of our most serious crimes