日本語
한국어
Polski
Deutsch
Nederlands
Español
Français
Português
Italiano
Svenska
繁體中文
Dansk
// DOSSIER — uk-government-lift-ban-palestine-action
UK Government Urged to Lift Ban on Palestine Action Amid Free Speech Concerns and Rising Arrests
REL_TIME: 04 Oct 2026 17:12Z · LANG: EN
The UK government, led by Prime Minister Andy Burnham, is facing mounting pressure from political figures and human rights organizations to reverse its July 2025 proscription of the activist group Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. Critics, including Scottish Greens spokesperson Maggie Chapman and Green Party leader Zack Polanski, argue the ban criminalizes peaceful protest and free expression. This political pushback coincides with a Liberty/More in Common poll showing that 54% of Britons believe the government only protects agreeable free speech, alongside Home Office data revealing 2,819 arrests linked to the group in the year ending March 2026.
// Background
Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organization by the UK government on July 5, 2025, following an incident where members caused 7 million pounds in damage to aircraft at an RAF base. The ban has since been the subject of intense legal battles: the High Court ruled it unlawful in February 2026, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in August 2026. In July 2026, the UK Supreme Court granted co-founder Huda Ammori permission to appeal the ban.
// Key Developments
- Scottish Greens spokesperson Maggie Chapman and Green Party leader Zack Polanski have called on the UK government to lift the terrorist designation on Palestine Action.
- A Liberty/More in Common poll revealed that 54% of Britons believe the government only protects free speech with which it agrees.
- Palestine Action was banned in July 2025 after causing 7 million pounds in damage to aircraft at an RAF base; the ban is currently being legally challenged by co-founder Huda Ammori.
- Home Office figures show 2,819 arrests and 484 charges linked to Palestine Action support in the year ending March 31, 2026.
// Timeline
-
Palestine Action is proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 following a 7 million pounds damage incident at an RAF base.
-
The High Court rules that the ban on Palestine Action is disproportionate and unlawful.
-
End of the reporting year in which the Home Office records 2,819 arrests and 484 charges linked to Palestine Action.
-
The UK Supreme Court grants Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori permission to challenge the ban.
-
The Court of Appeal overturns the High Court's ruling, reinstating the validity of the ban.
-
Liberty and More in Common conduct a poll of 2,017 Britons regarding free speech.
-
Police arrest demonstrators supporting Palestine Action outside the Labour Party conference in Liverpool.
-
Scottish Greens spokesperson Maggie Chapman publicly urges the UK government to lift the ban.
// Perspectives
[Scottish Greens & Green Party]
Strongly oppose the ban on Palestine Action, arguing it criminalizes free speech, peaceful protest, and opposition to war crimes, and call for its immediate revocation.
[UK Home Office / Labour Government]
Defend the proscription, arguing that while free speech is protected, Palestine Action engaged in unlawful behavior and property damage, making support for the group a criminal offense.
[Liberty (Human Rights Group)]
Express concern over the polling data and the government's inconsistent enforcement of free speech, warning that the crackdown on protests undermines democratic rights.
// Quotes
“That acknowledgement will ring hollow as long as Labour maintains a ban that has criminalised hundreds of people for calling out genocide and other war crimes, waving banners and wearing t-shirts.”
“Freedom of speech and peaceful protest are fundamental rights that this government will always protect. But there is a clear difference between expressing a view and engaging in unlawful behaviour — such as inciting hatred and violence or supporting proscribed organisations.”
“Britons prize their ability to criticise the government, to express their views without legal or professional consequences, and to debate issues openly.”
