Is Palestine Action really a terrorist group?

This is a Global Player Original Podcast.

The chance 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 organization was prescribed. This group has been staging direct actions in the name of Palestine for months. In July, Evet Cooper, the Home Secretary, banned it, saying it was a terrorist organization.

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 The 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 two thousand. Vet Cooper citing the Home Secretary citing its involvement in vandalism are 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. Since then over seven hundred 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 Palestinian As recently as the ninth of August, so what ten days ago During a protest in Parliament Square, around five hundred demonstrators were initially arrested. That's the largest single day hall in over a decade. That number later rose to

five hundred and thirty two and it's not just in London there 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 counterterrorism system was that Palestine action satisfies the relevant tests in its 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 Act. So this is where it gets complicated because my suspicion is that of those five hundred 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.

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 twenty twenty four, Elbit Systems UK, which I think is an Israeli defence firm but you know operating perfectly legally in Britain.

And eighteen 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, uh that is all true. But nonetheless it is also true that the prescription, the prohibition of Palestine action is unusual, even under the terrorism uh legislation. And this is why it's controversial. It's not just because you're seeing

five hundred, seven hundred people who are clearly peaceful, often little old ladies or you know, like uh un 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 organisations.

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. And 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 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 and the 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 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 an a big optics problem, political problem, if nothing else, for a government where this issue splits the Labour Party right down the middle. Yeah, well I mean arguably it doesn't split it right down the middle. No, well no that's pretty right. And you've had the Labour MP Stella Crisi And uh 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 at 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. 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 you know 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 host a priest, a vicar who's a priest or a victor. Or the the engineer from Brighton who had printed a t shirt with very similar lettering to Palestine Action, but it said Plastocene action.

Yeah. I think this is a nightmare for the police because they have their obligations under the law. And look the law is clear and and maybe this is a good opportunity for us to as a country think about actually just how much power the government has, which we they probably would not have if we had a system like the United States with a c set of constitutional rights, how much gu 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. It gives the Home Secretary enormous powers, basically, to define what a terrorist group and what isn't. And 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 the government. And the use or threat

is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Well, again, tick tick tick, so under the legislation, there's no doubt that Yvette Cooper can say, Yep, this is a terrorist group. The question is 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. Look, given the sensitivities.

the polarization, 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. Okay, 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 MI five and they don't want it made put into the public domain for whatever reason.

Uh yeah, I accept all of that. Government cannot be totally open all the time. But on something as sensitive as proscribing Palestine action. then you need to make your case better 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 what do you do? Their job is to enforce And I kinda thought it at the time of the coronation and it was the you know, kind of the republican groups who were gonna be singled out and arrested and I just thought, you know,

Uh yeah, I know, but we've got a right to protest in this country and let's not be too silly about it. I I just do not think whatever you think about the group itself, the optic For Britain as a democracy, of seeing these people hauled away for what on the f at least ostensibly appears pretty innocuous.

And the group is definitely if we accept that it's a terrorist group, it it's on the very lower end of of the sort of things that those groups do. Is is a terrible look for British democracy. It's getting noticed around around the world. And not only is it a terrible look.

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. Why? 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 on the right. And it legitimizes their idea that th 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. And on as a an issue as sort of hot as this, as you say, John, as 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 Okay, maybe this group does need to be prescribed.

And that it would have been far better, as you say, if Evette Cooper had been more open in the twenty first century. I think you just have to be. Trust me I'm a politician. Yeah, well 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.

Uh just as an aside, I just want to travel down a little by way, a little tiny lane for a moment, to say that I have haven't noticed much opposition to the prescribing of Palestine action from those free speech warriors like J. D. Vance and the State Department.

outside an abortion clinic. Well quite so. You know. I mean that's always the same th always the same thing with these things. It's free speech as long as I agree with it. But I mean I do think on the left and right there probably ought to be a bit more of a sort of 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 asked myself honestly, would I be bat bothered about them being prescribed? No, I wouldn't be. So I think that, you know, the 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'cause 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 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 Lewis 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. They're there to enforce the laws of the land. Right, well after this we're gonna be speaking to Sir Ed Davy, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who has said today that the prescription of Palestine action ought to be reviewed. Stay with us. This is

And we are joined now by the Liberal Democrat leader Sarred Davy. Thank you for being on the news agents. You 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.

So Lisa Smart, the Liber Home Affairs spokesperson, set out why we did we felt that uh Palestine Action, while it was a criminal group who had committed damage to property, including a military sites, that we were not convinced by what the government had said that that that they met the bar of being prescribed under terrorism legislation. So we've initiate right from the start, we've

expressed our concerns. And then of course we saw those uh protests, those peaceful protests in Parliament Square when so many people were arrested. The police doing doing the job uh that they they've been asked to do, but were arrested for Essentially uh wearing t shirts and the like with the name Palestine Action. And I think many people looking at those images said

Come on, these people are exercising freedom of speech. They are peacefully protesting. 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 and asked him to look at it. 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 Davy, 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. Even with a briefing. Now maybe um she wasn't told everything, who knows? But we we have uh had that briefing and um you've got to be really careful when you prescribe groups, particularly the way the terrorism legislation works.

I mean essentially uh the people who were arrested in Parliament Square weren't all members of Palest Palestine Action, let's remember. They just ha were wearing clothing which had that name on. Indeed, one person got a arrested'cause he 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 on terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda uh and ISIS and so on. And Liberal Democrats have been firmly behind. that legislation and the action of the police and the security services against those terrorist organisations. But 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 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 the placards, but the people who have attacked British military installations, they've broken into factories, they've damaged sites, even RAF bases. 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. odd, but you don't need to use terrorist legislation to do that.

And therefore, y when you talk about Archie Arqid and ISIS, I think everyone is really clear. They more than met the bar for being a terrorist organisation. We're rightly prescribed. Uh UVF, uh Football Lads Alliance, far right. I mean there are different sorts of groups who aren't as bad as those you just mentioned. Well there's a lot of groups who uh need to be monitored and watched and punished when they commit crimes.

but they aren't all designated as as terrorist organisations under the tourism 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. Uh and they linked in Palestine action where they we don't felt they uh made the case s seriously uh and properly and fully. And so yeah, we think this needs to be looked at, absolutely.

But 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 neu'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r Well, um I I I think the criminal acts that were committed by members of Palestine Action should be punished very, very severely. Uh 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 a military base and we couldn't have been more open about our desire to see these people punished. But I really don't think the government has yet made the case. uh that that results in them being prescribed as a terrorist organization. Okay, 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 eighteen 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.

a 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 uh I think you were making my case that that these people can be prosecuted under existing legislation. And that's quite that then that's quite right. 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

rydyn ni'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd ond ond ond ond ond ond ond ond ond ond ond ond ond ond ond ond ond to an Irish newspaper. Um uh let's see um uh other people who uh who Well she said she said she wants to continue to support

Financially. Well, um I I I I don't know which different law would be applied. I'm not I don't think a terrorism law should be prescribed uh should be used in this case.

That's why we uh have cons been concerned about the prescription. And just on one other thing, um obviously the Prime Minister's been in Washington and been at that extraordinary sort of almost summit at the White House. He said that he thinks we're further forward as a result of Donald Trump's efforts than we've been, uh closer to peace than we've been before. Do do you agree with that? I hope we are. I hope we are. Difficult to be sure, isn't it?

Mae'n bwysig yn ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol ymwneudol. Uh and while it is right that uh there is talking that it's there's a hint that the US may give uh some support to guarantees from Europe of the future security of Ukraine. There's n it's too vague.

I think anyone who thinks that this has really moved the dial a maybe a bit of wishful thinking. I hope it has, but I think the jury's out. Would you trust Donald Trump what he says? Um well I'd certainly trust him more than let me put it. uh who I don't think we can trust at all. It's a low bar. Um but I I think we should you know I we shouldn't suspend maljudgment when it comes to this president of the United States.

previous President of the United States I've been willing to give the benefit of the doubt. what President Trump has done and said should make us all uh really reflect on whether or not he's take he's going in the right direction. So let me take you back to the security guarantees that he may or may not have given because it's all so vague.

What price is he going to exact from Ukraine? It has been reported that he wants them to give up land that they're currently defending. I mean, that would be an unacceptable price, the fact that he's given a concession to Putin. that there doesn't need to be a ceasefire. I find that really deeply uh alarming.

So um, you know, let us hope that uh Trump delivers a peace that Ukraine can uh willingly sign up to. I'm not convinced yet. Hey Davy, thanks so much for joining us. Thank you. Cheers. Bye-bye. Uh when it comes to security they're willing to put people on the ground. We're willing to help them with things, especially Uh probably if you could talk about by air because there's nobody has

The kind of stuff we have. Really they don't have. But I don't think it's gonna be a problem. I think if a deal is made, uh you know, famous last words, right? But I think if a deal is made I think Russia's had it, they've all had it and for a very extended period of time I don't think So that is Donald Trump, the morning after the night before, appearing on Fox and Friends and maybe giving a tiny bit more on what a security guarantee could look like.

America will be at thirty six thousand feet and European troops presumably on the ground. And you can see that that is where the direction of travel is, but still so much of it. feels so vain.

About what progress was made last night, even though of course European leaders uh heralding it and saying it was a major breakthrough. I think um that interview with Fox and Friends which made me laugh actually'cause they described it as uh his first interview. Since last night. how fantastical quite a lot of yesterday was. And to be honest, how fantastic.

It all is even in Trump's mind. I mean, even when he said there, you know, I don't think it'll be a problem to be honest, if we get a deal, you know, with sort of Western troops on on the front line, you know, as a security guarantee. But the Kremlin has overnight said that that's never gonna happen. They've said that in fairness to them.

Throughout. Why would they accept it? This entire war has been about the idea of Russia not wanting NATO or anything like NATO. And it won't matter if it's under a NATO aegis or it's under another aegis. to them having troops on the front line. And and and Trump there Again all over the place. So in COA on on exactly kind of what these security guarantees might be or might not. Maybe they involve something about the air, maybe they don't.

And you know, as we were saying on on the, you know, hundred and sixth show that we did on it last night, this is this is the main bit. This has been written up. Extensively. European leaders focusing on the idea of security guarantees, you know, saying what a big game changer it is and so on. Like, let's be real here. Let's be real. Trump signed up to nothing. He signed up to nothing. It's clear in even in his own head he doesn't know what that means or what it might mean. Now on one level

I suppose the fact that he's even countenancing it is a is an interesting thing he probably wouldn't have done three or four months ago. But my god, there is a long, long way to go before we get any real sense at all of what it might mean, even if it continues to exist. But that sense of fantasy politics. I thought came out when

You know, Trump was talking about how Putin just wants to get this over and Putin is ready to make a deal and all the rest of it. And you look at everything that has come out of the Kremlin and what has been said by Russia, what has been said by Sergei Lavrov. I've never wanted to be more wrong or on anything than I am about Ukraine. But it looks to me, as we sit here now, and I as I say, I hope to God I'm wrong, is that I can't believe that there is going to be a meeting

between Zelensky and Putin. I think that Russia will say, well, these certain conditions have to be met before we sit down with you. Putin is not going to want to sit down as an equal with Zelensky. He's called him a Nazi. He's called him a Nazi. He doesn't think Ukraine has a right to be what it is. All those things.

And so I find it hard to believe that that is going to happen. And, you know, the security guarantees don't become operable unless there is an agreement between Putin and Zelensky about what a peace deal might look like. And so Yeah, it was better than six months ago. Hurrah. Hooray. But have we really pushed the ball further?

Towards a settlement, towards some kind of comprehensive peace deal? I'm still not convinced. And it was only better than six months ago, because Zelensky and the European leaders have all agreed to live in the fantasy. They've all agreed to live in Trump's fantasy slipstream, where everything's possible, where m maybe Ukraine was partly responsible for the war, where Biden was responsible for the war, where it would never have happened if Trump had been president.

the only way in which this is better is because they're all agreeing with him on his many fantasies. And at some point the the sort of game between Europe and Russia is who can live in that fantasy slipstream for longer? And who does Trump come out of it hating more or disliking more? That's the game that's being played. It's not really about keep coming up to this point, but it's true, it's not really really about the deal. It's about keeping Trump on sides.

And that's what all of it was about. You mentioned Lavrov. Lavrov has said this morning, any Putin Zelensky meeting has to be, quotes, prepared extremely carefully. Oh well we all know what that means, right? Russia will only agree to a deal that quotes respects its security interests. The quotes foundations of Europe Ukraine's recognition as an independent state would disappear if it aligns with the West. Again, we all know what that means. We'll be going back in.

So honestly John, I I'm I'm like you. Everywhere else seems to be sort of getting a bit Wrapped up in some of the sort of optimism around it. I don't think we're any further forward than we were six months ago. I really don't. I just think we're just living in in in Trump's mind palace. Yeah, I read some, you know, reports coming out of the US from people I respect saying, No, this was a game changer in the r relationship.

Has been reset and there are some real challenges for Vladimir Putin now. I still think the fundamental problem is that Putin hasn't changed. An iota. And he thinks he's winning. And he thinks he's winning. And therefore the terms that he would want a peace deal on are terms that would be totally unacceptable to Vladimir Zelensky and the Ukrainian people and to most of Europe. So in this whole fantasy slipstream that you kind of elegantly describe it as

There is a point where the rubber hits the road, to mix metaphors. There is a point where you have to confront these issues. And who is prepared to compromise? And at the moment it looks like Russia wants stuff that Ukraine cannot possibly give. And therefore, in that situation, what is the progress that can realistically be made? Sure, on the security guarantees, you can start preparing for a situation where there is a comprehensive peace deal.

But you have to get the comprehensive peace deal first. And that still seems to me as far away as ever. Before we go, I thought you might like to hear how we tried to start the podcast today. We are such broadcasting pros. It's John. It's Lewis. Oh I thought you wanted to say something. No, I didn't know. Oh no, sorry, I thought okay fine. Alright, let's try again. It's John. It's Lewis. And some background um on this in case you've not been following it. And it's actu

Take three. Take three. It's John. It's Take four. It's John. It's Lewis. Well at least look, I mean that was a dodgy intro, but at least it was better than Fox and Friends outro today with uh with Trump. You know what they said, what their final line was to him as they wrapped up? They said uh Well, we've gotta let you go, mister President. You've probably got lots of other wars to go and solve. Pass me the vom bucket. Honestly Where's the can you do the vom emoji on on a podcast?

We can try. We'll be back tomorrow when we've cleared our stomachs. Bye bye. Bye bye.