Palestine Action, the direct-action protest group, was granted permission on July 30 to appeal its terrorist designation at the United Kingdom Supreme Court. The government controversially issued this designation in 2025, and although the group successfully appealed the designation in the High Court, that ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeal in June.
Since the group was designated as terrorist, more than 3,000 peaceful protesters have been arrested for showing support for it.
Treating a protest group as terrorists takes a leaf from the playbook of authoritarian rulers around the world. It violates the protesters’ rights and needs to end. If protesters commit crimes such as criminal damage they should be prosecuted as such. But this is not the only draconian assault on protest rights that Andy Burnham, the UK’s new prime minister, has inherited.
The previous Conservative government introduced a series of laws creating new protest related offenses and dramatically increased the prison sentences possible for peaceful protest activities. Then Labour—under former Prime Minister Keir Starmer—continued the crackdown with this year’s Crime and Policing Act, creating yet more protest related crimes and giving the police new powers to curtail demonstrations.
Increasingly broad police powers and vague legal concepts make it harder for people to know what protest activities are lawful, and what may lead to arrest or prosecution.
Gina Romero, the United Nations special rapporteur on protest rights, described the Crime and Policing Act as “fundamentally incompatible with international human rights obligations.” The result of all these measures is that thousands of people have been arrested and prosecuted for actions that previously were not crimes, or carried far less severe penalties.
Burnham, who succeeded Starmer in July, will have to grapple with this legacy. The government should simplify the confusing patchwork of recent legislation so that it restores legal certainty, repeals draconian provisions, and ensures that the right to peaceful protest is properly protected. And the Prime Minister should direct the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, to reverse the badly mistaken designation of Palestine Action as a “terrorist” group.”
Facts Only
* Palestine Action sought permission on July 30 to appeal its terrorist designation at the United Kingdom Supreme Court.
* The designation was issued in 2025.
* The group successfully appealed the designation in the High Court.
* The ruling from the High Court was reversed by the Court of Appeal in June.
* More than 3,000 peaceful protesters have been arrested for showing support for Palestine Action.
* The previous Conservative government introduced laws creating protest-related offenses and increased prison sentences.
* The Labour government, under Keir Starmer, enacted the Crime and Policing Act this year.
* This Act created further protest-related crimes and granted police new powers to curtail demonstrations.
* Gina Romero, UN special rapporteur on protest rights, described the Crime and Policing Act as incompatible with international human rights obligations.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative presents a tension between state security measures and fundamental civil liberties concerning protest. The pattern observed is the use of evolving legislation to justify increased state control over public assembly, shifting focus from criminal acts by protesters to regulating the existence and expression of dissent itself. This transition—from designating an organization to broadening police powers via legislation—demonstrates a systemic strategy where legal uncertainty serves to manage public behavior rather than establish clear rights. The argument hinges on the idea that accountability is eroded when legal definitions are intentionally obfuscated, allowing for the criminalization of political action under the guise of public safety. The call for simplification and reversal suggests an underlying assumption that legal clarity is the prerequisite for protecting human dignity during dissent. The cost appears to fall disproportionately on peaceful participants who face prosecution based on vague or expanded powers.
What mechanisms exist to ensure that expansive police powers are tethered to demonstrable, immediate threats, rather than serving as tools for broader political control? How can legal systems prioritize the protection of protest rights when legislative frameworks actively expand punitive measures against expression? What precedent is set when the definition of terrorism is applied to political advocacy groups versus criminal acts committed by individuals?
Sentinel — Human
The text functions as a political argument using specific legal and historical events to critique governmental policies on protest rights, demonstrating a clear persuasive intent.