Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.
Lawyers representing Palestine Action have drawn parallels between their group and the suffragettes as they contest the government’s prohibition of the organisation. During the opening day of a three-day judicial review at the High Court, legal counsel for co-founder Huda Ammori argued that if current legislation had existed over a century ago, the women’s suffrage movement would likely have faced a similar ban.
Palestine Action was declared a proscribed terrorist organisation following actions that inflicted millions of pounds in damages on defence companies. The then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, made this designation based on internal security evaluations conducted by the Home Office concerning the group’s activities. Raza Husain KC, representing Ms Ammori, described the ban as unprecedented in legal terms.
Outside the court, approximately 200 demonstrators gathered peacefully, many silently displaying signs reading “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” Some of these protesters were subsequently detained by police officers. Since the implementation of the ban, over 2,100 individuals across the country have been arrested for participating in similar protest actions. In court, Mr Husain KC highlighted that throughout the history of terrorism legislation used by home secretaries to ban organisations, none had been proscribed solely for being dedicated to “direct action.” He noted that prior to being banned, Palestine Action had amassed hundreds of thousands of followers on social media. Most participants involved in protests or alleged property damage had faced charges under conventional offences such as criminal damage.
Government officials maintain that the group’s series of actions went beyond minor vandalism by causing substantial financial harm, thereby validating the decision to impose the ban. According to Mr Husain KC, Palestine Action is unique as the first direct action civil disobedience group, which does not endorse violence, to be designated as a terrorist organisation. He stated, “Ms Huda Ammori has explained that she was inspired by the long tradition in this country from suffragettes to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists.” Moreover, he pointed out that “The suffragettes had resorted to direct action, property damage and even attempted arson at Westminster Abbey.” Legal submissions further argued that if the Terrorism Act 2000 had existed in the early 20th century, the suffragettes themselves might have been subject to proscription.
Ammori’s legal team contend that the proscription is unlawful because it excessively restricts the rights to freedom of expression and assembly, and claim that the then Home Secretary did not sufficiently consider these rights before enacting the ban. They also assert that Cooper failed to engage with the group prior to the decision and neglected her own policy requirement that such a ban must be proportionate. Lawyer Owen Greenhall argued the ban’s broad effects have discouraged lawful protests outside a major defence company targeted by Palestine Action since its inception. He explained that anyone participating in disruptive demonstrations risks being labelled a member of the banned group. The government will respond to these challenges in court on Thursday, with final arguments scheduled for the following Tuesday, including a closed session held in the interest of national security. In their written response, published ahead of the hearing, government lawyers maintain that ministers acted within their legal powers in identifying incidents that justified banning the organisation, and that they were not obligated to consider that most of Palestine Action’s activities did not meet the threshold for proscription
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.