https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2026/02/palestine-action-victory-vindicates.html

We Have to Remain Vigilant & Continue the Protests - the Court of Appeal under Reactionary ‘Justice’ Lady Carr May Reverse the Decision


Palestine Action co-founder: 'Today is just an incredible victory'

The decision of the High Court to declare that the proscription of Palestine Action as a ‘terrorist’ group is unlawful is a sweet victory. It is made even sweeter by the dishonesty and hypocrisy of this corrupt ‘Labour’ government which prefers paedophiles to anti-genocide activists.

However we should not be complacent. The decision is extremely problematic. The arguments that the three judges – Dames Victoria Sharp & Karen Steyn & Jonathan Swift - the most reactionary, pro-Zionist and security minded of the High Court, based their decision on, are extremely feeble and in places obscure and contradictory.

In paragraph 29 of the judgement they argue that Palestine Action is a violent group.

In paragraph 34 they repeat the lie, which the jury did not uphold, regarding the Bristol attack on Elbit, that

during the attack two responding police officers and a security guard were assaulted and suffered injuries. One police officer had been assaulted with a sledgehammer and sustained a serious back injury

Contrary to the misinformation of the prostitute press, the police officer in question did not suffer a serious back injury. That these reactionary bewigged fools got this wrong suggests that this judgment may not last very long.

In paras. 43 and 45 they cite with approval the unanimous view of the Proscription Review Group that ‘the discretionary considerations weigh in favour of proscription’ and that Palestine Action was a terrorist group.

In para. 57 these judges rejected the proposition that

Palestine Action victory

fairness required the Home Secretary to give Palestine Action notice that she was minded to exercise her power to proscribe, to provide such reasons as she could, and to permit Palestine Action to have the opportunity to make representations.

This despite the fact that the Israeli Embassy and Elbit had been consulted. In para 88 the court found that:

The submission for the claimant has emphasised that only three of Palestine Action’s many actions were assessed to amount to acts of terrorism. That is so, but we are satisfied the Home Secretary was entitled to attach significant weight to any act occurring in the United Kingdom that came within the section 1 definition of terrorism.

We should bear in mind that the ‘definition of terrorism’ in the Terrorism Act 2000 is so wide that you could drive a coach and horses through it. Virtually any group could be proscribed if the government was set on it. The definition has been repeatedly criticized, not least by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation David Anderson QC who spoke of ‘the extreme breadth of the definition of terrorism in UK law.’

Anderson went on to point out (3.2(e)) in his 2011 Report that

Actions may constitute terrorism even when they might otherwise constitute lawful hostilities under international humanitarian law (e.g. acts of violent rebellion against oppressive governments, even where targeting only military objectives and minimising civilian casualties).

Anderson observed (3.5) that:

The most striking feature of the TA 2000 definition is the fact that terrorist action is ―equally criminal whether it is intended to take place in the UK or elsewhere‖. This far exceeds the limited extraterritorial effect required by the EU Framework Decision and by the 16 international conventions and protocols that were concluded between 1963 and 2005 to address specific activities linked to terrorism. The effect is to extend the label of terrorism to violent actions directed against any regime in the world, however unsavoury or opposed to UK interests that regime may be, and however praiseworthy the objective of the ‘terrorists’ may appear. Ctd....