Earlier this week Home Secretary Yvette Cooper laid a draft proscription order in Parliament, to proscribe Palestine Action. Included in this order are also two other organisations for proscribing – the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. Both are neo-Nazi organisations, and the reason why they are included is because the Home Secretary hopes this will stop MPs, who will be voting later today, voicing opposition to the order.

If passed, Palestine Action’s network of nonviolent direct-action activists – who have never harmed anyone – will be labelled a terrorist organisation. This will be the first time this has happened to an activist group and sets a dangerous precedent.

Proscribing Palestine Action

Proscribed organisations are officially banned by the government under the Terrorism Act 2000. It becomes illegal to belong to, support, finance, or engage in any activities related to it. Expressions of support through any means can be considered a criminal offense, punishable by disproportionate penalties of up to 14 years in prison.

Palestine Action’s tactic of using direct action to target property and premises connected to war crimes in Palestine, especially Elbit systems which is Israel’s largest arms firm, is extremely successful – and has never been more necessary.

It has inflicted millions of pounds worth of damage to these facilities, and achieved a number of important victories, including the permanent closure of several Israeli weapons factories, and the loss of contracts worth billions of pounds. The group says it does not appeal to politicians or anyone else to create the necessary changes, because most global institutions are deeply complicit:

Rather than begging those who are complicit to gain a moral compass, we go straight to the source and shut down the production of Israeli weapons.

Although the majority of Britons surveyed last month oppose Israel’s aggression in Gaza, and 82% of these opponents believe Israel’s actions amount to genocide, their demands are not being met by the government. Hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens have regularly taken to the streets, calling for justice for Palestine – a permanent ceasefire, a ban on arms exports to Israel, and an end to its illegal occupation and its genocide in Gaza, but their pleas have been ignored. This is the reason why Palestine Action’s methods resonate with so many.

The government’s plan to proscribe it has resulted to an outpouring of support from a wide range of organisations and individuals, who see this as a dangerous attack on free speech and our right to protest, and are extremely concerned about this unlawful misuse of anti-terror measures attempting to criminalise dissent and brand non-violent direct action as terrorism.

Tom Southerden, Programme Director for Law & Human Rights at Amnesty International UK, told the Canary that:

Proscribing Palestine Action would mark a dramatic and deeply concerning expansion of the Government’s use of its powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. These powers are deeply flawed and overly broad.

Using them in relation to a direct-action protest group risks unlawfully interfering with the human rights to freedom of expression and assembly by creating a chilling effect on people wishing to take part in peaceful protest. Proscription will mean that a range of broadly worded criminal offences dictating what people can say and do will affect activists from a much wider movement concerned about Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, putting them at risk of being branded terrorists.

Existing criminal law, accompanied by appropriate human rights protections, would have been more than sufficient to respond to the direct-action protests Palestine Action have carried out without labelling potentially thousands of people terrorists and threatening their right to protest. Terrorism laws were meant to be applied only when absolutely necessary.

Proscription of Palestine Action is neither necessary nor proportionate.

The power of the Israel lobby groups, which operate as extensions of the Israeli embassy, is huge

UN experts are also extremely concerned, and have contacted the government urging it not to misuse its terrorism laws by banning the ‘direct action’ group.

They say that while there is no binding definition of terrorism in international law:

best practice international standards limit terrorism to criminal acts intended to cause death, serious personal injury or hostage taking, in order to intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act. Mere property damage, without endangering life is not sufficiently serious to qualify as terrorism.

According to these experts, protest actions which are not genuine terrorism, but involve property damage, should be properly investigated as ordinary crimes or other security offences.

The Zionist lobby group and registered charity We Believe in Israel has played a major role in lobbying the Home Office and calling for Palestine Action to be proscribed. Its report, “Palestine Action: A Case for Proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000,” claims that ‘by singling out Jewish-affiliated institutions and individuals for harassment and vandalism’, Palestine Action ‘contributes to a toxic climate that fans the flames of antisemitism’.

This is a ridiculous assertion and completely untrue, as the ‘Jewish affiliated institutions’ are only targeted because they are connected with the Israeli war machine, and has nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism. We Believe in Israel has also campaigned for the UK government to suspend all aid to UNRWA, and describes Israeli apartheid as a ‘myth’. The group’s former director, Luke Akehurst, is now a Labour MP.

John McEvoy is an investigative journalist and Chief Reporter for Declassified UK, a media organisation which investigates Britain’s foreign policy and its military & intelligence agencies and corporations.

He told the Canary:

It is highly concerning that We Believe in Israel, a pressure group whose sources of funding are unknown, is claiming credit for the proposed proscription of Palestine Action.

We Believe in Israel sits within a nexus of pro-Israel lobby organisations which fund trips to Israel for politicians and journalists, organise private briefings for officials, and suppress pro-Palestine sentiment in public discourse. The overall goal of these activities – funded trips, political donations, media work, private meetings – is to persuade politicians and journalists that supporting Israel is in their interests.

At the same time, the pro-Israel lobby employs a carrot and stick approach whereby ‘good’ behaviour is rewarded (free trips, positive media coverage, political donations etc) and ‘bad’ behaviour is punished (loss of funding, political flak, anti-Semitism smears etc). While many legislators in Britain are already avowed Zionists or simply view Israel as an extension of Western power in the region and need little persuading, the carrot and stick approach can achieve an important disciplining effect on politicians who are either equivocal or easily shunned into silence, which accounts for a significant proportion given the extent of careerism and cowardice present in Westminster.

The Israel lobby in the UK is extremely powerful and exerts considerable influence over UK politics and also our media. It has funded a quarter of British MPs, including the Home Secretary, and half of Starmer’s cabinet. Last year, Declassified UK also revealed Lord Walney, the man who was the government’s ‘independent’ adviser on political violence at the time, received funding from pro-Israel groups while pushing for a crackdown on pro-Palestine protests.

Proscribing groups is politically motivated and undermines democracy

Proscribing an organisation has many negative consequences, as can be seen in the case of Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah, better known as Hamas.

Founded in the early days of the first Intifada uprising in 1987, Hamas operated as a social movement for more than two decades – helping poor people and distributing religious and educational services to Palestinians in the occupied territory, before its official announcement as a national liberation and resistance movement against Israeli occupation.

2006 saw victory for Hamas in Gaza’s elections, and in 2007 it finally took control of the territory, cementing its political and military control of the Strip. Hamas’ military wing, known as Al-Qassam Brigades, was proscribed in 2001. Then in 2021, Hamas was proscribed in its entirety, by then-Home Secretary Priti Patel.

These terrorist labels are politically motivated, and are not only undermining democracy by seeking to eliminate Hamas from the political process – although the party won the only free and fair elections in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) but are also being used to target and silence an entire movement and criminalise resistance against the illegal occupation in Palestine.

So, the proscription of Hamas is being challenged. This is possible because when the Terrorism Act was passing into law the government recognised the need for a remedy in case a minister abused the power to proscribe, as in the case of the politically compromised Patel, who is an avid supporter of the Zionist state. This remedy enables the submission of applications to the Home Secretary, which challenge the proscription of any organisation.

Proscription unlawfully restricts our rights

Riverway Law is a London-based immigration and nationality law firm, which submitted a legal application to the Home Secretary in April after being instructed by Hamas to appeal its proscription decision. Riverway Law’s Director Fahad Ansari told the Canary:

Hamas’ application for deproscription is based on three primary grounds.

Firstly, that the proscription contravenes Britain’s obligations under international law to end genocide, end crimes against humanity, bring to an end the occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), and recognise the Palestinian people as full members of the human family, equal in dignity.

Secondly, proscription unlawfully restricts the freedom of speech and assembly of those with whom the British state politically disagrees- and only of those with whom it disagrees. And, finally, that proscription is not proportionate because Hamas does not pose any threat to Britain or its citizens.

The statement from Mousa Abu Marzouk, Head of Hamas’ Foreign Relations Office, who requested the appeal says:

The UK government’s decision to proscribe Hamas is an unjust one that is symptomatic of its unwavering support for Zionism, apartheid, occupation and ethnic cleansing in Palestine for over a century. Hamas does not and never has posed a threat to Britain, despite the latter’s ongoing complicity in the genocide of our people.

It is perhaps out of colonial guilt that Britain fears that one day, those it oppresses will strike back against the sponsors of the Zionist entity. Britain should have no such fear.’ It goes on to say ‘We are concerned at the lack of respect for freedom of speech in Britain as a result of its long-standing policy of support for Zionism.

It seems that Britain is so insecure about the Zionist account of reality that it is not willing to even allow opposing views to be ventilated lest the house of cards upon which it has rested its integrity comes crashing down at the first engagement with the truth. The truth is that the “land without a people” always had people: Palestinians exist, we are not inferior to other peoples, and like all humans, we cannot and will not live without dignity.

The proscription of Hamas in its entirety not only contravenes the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) by unlawfully restricting freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, which are our rights to protest, but also brings about other negative outcomes.

Ansari explains that all individuals in Hamas, the de facto civil administration of Gaza, which runs all public services – the bureaucracy, the schools, the hospitals, the firefighters, the civilian police, and even the garbage collectors – are effectively criminalised, as well as any British citizen who meets or enters into dealings with them.

Palestinians are dying because Hamas has been designated a terrorist organisation

Ansari told the Canary:

This has had lethal consequences, not just for the ability of humanitarian relief agencies to distribute aid, but also for healthcare workers, journalists and UN workers, all of whom have been systematically targeted by Israel on the basis that they are ‘Hamas’. The proscription also nullifies the British government’s ability to exercise any influence over a key protagonist in the region and reduces the prospects of reaching a just and lasting peace.

All aid organisations and charities that operate in Gaza have to tread very carefully around terrorism laws, so they do not violate them and find themselves getting prosecuted. They have to get through a very vigorous due diligence process to ensure that whoever it is that they are dealing with has no involvement or any kind of connection with the proscribed group, the administrator of the enclave, which is Hamas. And when every aspect of the administration of the Strip is Hamas, whether it’s the Health Ministry or the civil infrastructure, that means you don’t have access to any of them.

According to Ahmed Jeddo, Advocacy Coordinator for the international humanitarian charity Human Aid and Advocacy, the continued proscription of Hamas, especially during this catastrophic time when the population of Gaza is facing starvation and extermination, is a huge obstacle for aid organisations, which are simply trying to save lives. The restrictions, he says, are not only bureaucratic, but are also exacerbating the suffering of Palestinians, and costing lives during this genocide.

Jeddo told the Canary:

The proscription of Hamas means you are much less efficient and effective in the way you operate. On an operational level if you’re not working with the top part of the operation, which is working on the ground with people, there are many things that you don’t have access to. You can’t use the infrastructure of the actual state itself to administer more efficiently and quickly, and you don’t have access to the Civil Registry, so you can’t do effective means testing of who needs the aid, and where the needs are best served. You’re effectively hamstrung in the way you operate.

All these problems come into play, and the end result is people are losing their lives, lives that could ordinarily be saved if we would have access to all of these different levels of civil infrastructure. Because of the precarious nature of things, it also does put charities operating in Gaza in a much more vulnerable position, because they are vulnerable to attack, or suspicions, or people who just want to cause problems for the people of Gaza by disabilitating the actual aid.

So those operating or trying to save lives are also coming under pressure, because there are groups out there that don’t want aid to be received by the people of Gaza. So, because of the laws that are in place at the moment, bad actors can then weaponize those laws against organisations, through allegations, through suspicion, through putting pressure on the Charity Commission that then makes life even more difficult, which averts many others from engaging in Gaza.

Smear campaigns designed to perpetuate genocide and war crimes in Gaza

This has happened to the Muslim-led British charity called Save One Life, which is currently under investigation over allegations that the money it raises for the needy in Gaza could end up in the hands of Hamas, because they were liaising with the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Development, to decide how best to distribute the cash.

But the charity claims these allegations are ‘malicious and false’. Cash aid, which Save One Life uses, is provided to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza by a number of organisations, including the UN, because of its numerous benefits over conventional aid. This claim of wrongdoing is, most likely, a smear campaign designed to negatively impact its essential work in Gaza, while the Zionists continue their ethnic cleansing and genocide, unabated.

Although international law recognises the right of oppressed peoples under colonial, racist, or foreign occupation to resist oppressive regimes, and fight for their liberation-including through armed struggle, Western propaganda and double standards mean, as in the case of Ukraine, those fighting our enemies are seen as heroes, while those fighting our allies, as in the case of Hamas, are classed as terrorists.

Any attempt to discuss the Palestinian right to resist is seen as supporting a proscribed organisation. Nowhere is this more severe than in our academic institutions, the places where open debate and exchange of idea should be encouraged.

Instead, organisations such as UK Lawyers for Israel, Campaign Against Antisemitism and the Community Security Trust, which exerts huge influence in these places, stifle debate and work with staff to silence and discipline students who support Palestine or even dare to debate such topics as the right of a so-called terror group to resist occupation.

According to Ansari, the continued proscription breaches Britain’s legal obligation to employ all means reasonably available to them to prevent – and end – the genocide:

Although Hamas is the only effective military force resisting-and seeking to end and prevent- the ongoing acts of genocide and crimes against humanity being committed by the Zionist State against the Palestinians in Gaza, their continued proscription is purposefully – and in any event practically – inhibiting the efforts of the Palestinian people to use military force to end and prevent those ongoing acts of genocide.

It is not only the organisation itself which has the right to appeal against its proscription and can make an application to the Home Secretary to remove it from the list of banned terrorist organisations, under section 4 of the Terrorism Act 2000, but also citizens who have been impacted by the proscription and faced adverse consequences due to the government’s action.

CAGE International, an organisation that has been fighting to highlight the chilling effects of terror laws for the past two decades, is also legally challenging the terrorist label on Hamas.

Last month it submitted an application to the Home Secretary, requesting that it deproscribes Hamas, from the government’s current list of 81 international ‘terrorist groups’ proscribed under the Terrorism Act.

CAGE’s application lists 24 examples of case studies, out of the hundreds they have dealt with, which show not only how the pro-Palestine movement is being suppressed as a result of these laws, but also the consequences of prosecutions on the broader movement.

CAGE’s casework up by 500% since 7 October

According to Anas Mustapha, Head of Public Advocacy at CAGE, one of the main purposes of their application is to broaden the public debate on Palestine.

Mustapha told the Canary:

The application itself is actually on behalf of our clients. Since the start of the genocide in Gaza we’ve been supporting an increasing number of people, with our casework service exploding by around about 500 percent over this time.

There are literally hundreds of clients from all walks of life-doctors, engineers, professionals, students, primary school kids- who have been reprimanded, sometimes arrested and prosecuted, as a result of their advocacy for Palestine and their defence for the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves. We believe this is a litmus test for civil liberties here in the UK. If it’s allowed to continue and proliferate, any form of advocacy for Palestine will be clamped down on as harshly as possible, using terrorism powers, and that’s exactly the reality now with the Palestine Action proscription.

So, there’s an urgent need to push back against this and perhaps push back even further and demand the abolition of terrorism powers, which have eroded our rights and freedoms for the last 10 years.

Public anger and resentment around proscription laws are also growing and, recently, more than 40 organisations signed a joint statement supporting the legal case to deproscribe Hamas in the UK. As expected, We Believe in Israel is campaigning against the deproscription of Hamas, describing the group as a ‘genocidal organisation’ and calling on the government to ‘stand by its commitment to global security and support for Israel by firmly rejecting any efforts to lift the ban on Hamas’.

For 20 plus years, despite multiple wars, despite multiple attacks and counter attacks, the British government never saw that it was necessary to proscribe Hamas.

Mustapha told the Canary:

They always maintained the position that the political wing was necessary to maintain open channels communication with them, and that they’re representative of large segments of Palestinians in the occupied territory, until this highly ideological bunch of low-grade politicians emerged with Boris Johnson, who happened to be totally beholden to Israel.

Priti Patel was no different, and she pushed for the proscription of the whole organisation. Unfortunately, despite new government coming in, there hasn’t been an appetite to shift that, and I guess October 7 cemented that. I don’t think there’s any climb back that is going to happen unless there is judiciary scrutiny of the government’s decision, and it is forced to change track. This is what our application, and the one submitted by Riverway Law are trying to push for.

Will the Home Secretary make the right decision over the proscribing of Hamas?

Concerns were raised, back in 2006 by Lord Carlile, the then-independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, that ‘the British government occasionally is inflexible in its attitude to changing situations around the world, with reference to proscription’. Ansari sees the applications for deproscription as an opportunity for the current Home Secretary to put things right:

Yvette Cooper has the opportunity to ensure that the arguable misuse of proscription powers by one of her predecessors is no longer an indirect cause of further death and destruction. It is undoubtedly a difficult decision that requires courage – but courage is what brought peace to Ireland.

In 2017, Tony Blair, credited with securing that peace, expressed his personal regret over the international boycott of Hamas following its electoral success in 2006. It now lies with this home secretary to decide whether she will have similar courage today or feel guilt-ridden in years to come because she chose to continue to support the Israeli genocide of Palestinians.

Once submitted, the Home Secretary has 90 days to consider the application. In the case of the Riverway Law, that 90 days is due to expire on 9 July. If the Home Secretary refuses the application, Hamas can appeal the decision to a specialist tribunal known as the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission.

Featured image via the Canary

By Charlie Jaay

This post was originally published on Canary.