Why violence, intimidation and support for a proscribed terrorist group can never be accepted
Nathan Emmerich, comms expert and integral member of the Martyn’s Law campaign team, discusses the recent support and subsequent arrests for proscribed group Palestine Action.
The right to protest is at the heart of our democracy. It is rightly protected under Human Rights legislation and gives people from all backgrounds the opportunity to have their voices heard.
In recent weeks, there have been nearly 600 people arrested for showing support for the proscribed group, Palestine Action. Notably, of the 532 people arrested on Saturday 9 August, almost half were aged 60 and above, including more than 100 in their 70s. The optics of their arrest and the ensuing reaction is concerning. While they turned up knowing that they would be arrested, they responded as if this was something being done to them.
I don’t think anyone in Parliament Square on that Saturday was a terrorist, but it does bring into question the seriousness of the actions from people who wilfully ignore the law to promote a terrorist organisation, all under the banner of the right to protest.
Since the brutal terror attack carried out by Hamas in Israel on 7 October 2023, and the ensuing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, hundreds of thousands of people have peacefully taken to the streets of London and cities across the UK, almost weekly, to protest their concerns about the brutality of the war.
While the ripple effects of the conflict have been acutely felt by Jews and Muslims here in the UK, including increasing rates of hate crimes, the majority of those protesting do not seek to cause harm or to isolate communities based on their cultural backgrounds or religious beliefs.
Currently there are 84 terrorist organisations proscribed under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000, with 14 organisations in Northern Ireland proscribed under previous legislation. Following the 7 October 2023, the Government has proscribed four groups – Hamas, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Terrogram, and most recently Palestine Action.
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the UK Home Secretary has the powers to proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do so. Under the Act, “terrorism” is defined as the use or threat of action which involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life; creates a serious risk to the health and safety of the public or section of the public.
The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the Government or an international governmental organisation, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and must be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
If we consider the actions taken by Palestine Action who damaged two military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton in an attempt to protest against the UK’s weapons sales to Israel, then this clearly fits under the definition of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Home Secretary has also set out factors that contributed to the group’s proscription, including intimidation, serious violence and information that cannot be disclosed due to national security reasons.
Whatever your opinion of the reasons for, and the proposed outcome regarding the conflict in Gaza, the scenes and testimonies coming from the people living it daily are harrowing to witness. But the scenes in recent weeks raise a question around the willingness of individuals to ignore the seriousness of supporting a proscribed terrorist group.
It appears that those showing support for Palestine Action are deliberately or unknowingly conflating the proscription of Palestine Action with the conflict itself and view their actions as a legitimate means to protest.
We also know that terrorists seek to disrupt and divide by sharing extremist narratives, as well as misinformation and disinformation. Social media has become a central tool for terrorist groups who deliberately share graphic content to stoke emotive responses. And the influence on those vulnerable to extremism is clear across the spectrum, from far-right to Islamist extremism.
It is difficult not to perceive these protests as a publicity stunt that would be celebrated by those groups who wish to undermine our democratic values and who wish to disrupt societal cohesion in the UK – there’s a risk that these protests embolden extremists and groups on the far right. The operational resource used to arrest 532 people cannot be understated – this ‘protest’ was designed to disrupt and stretch our police forces.
The focus in recent days has been on the possible consequences for those arrested, but we need to go further than dealing with this as an isolated incident. We need a national conversation about how we deal with these issues and how we reduce the influence of extremist groups, whilst allowing people to respectfully discuss matters of concern. We also need UK authorities to firmly grip these matters and to strengthen their response – violence, intimidation and support for a proscribed terrorist group can never be accepted.
