Palestine Action: ‘This is not what terror legislation was intended for’
Ed Davey is demanding a review of terrorism laws after the government's proscription of Palestine Action led to mass arrests of peaceful protesters, with the Lib Dem leader accusing ministers of "abusing" parliamentary process
Listen to this article
Read time: 3 minutes
In brief:
- The UK government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation in July 2025 after the group caused £7 million in damage to jets at RAF Brize Norton, leading to over 700 arrests including 500+ at a London protest.
- Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey tells The News Agents that he opposes the proscription, arguing that the group should have been handled under regular criminal law instead.
- The News Agents say the proscription has resulted in peaceful protesters being arrested simply for expressing support, creating "terrible optics for British democracy" when people are detained for wearing t-shirts or holding banners.
What’s the story?
Should Palestine Action be a proscribed terrorist group?
That is the question causing a huge headache for Keir Starmer, as he’s faced endless backlash since 1 July when his government deemed the answer to be ‘yes’.
The group was proscribed as a terrorist organisation after it caused £7 million pounds of damage to jets at RAF Brize Norton.
But Ed Davey is calling for a review of terrorism legislation, after 700 arrests have been made since the government’s decision, over 500 during a protest in central London days later.
He tells The News Agents that Keir Starmer’s government has “abused” parliamentary process in proscribing Palestine Action.
“While it is a criminal group who had permitted damage to property, including military sites, we were not convinced by what the government had said, that they met the bar of being prescribed under terrorism legislation,” he says.
“I really don't think the government has yet made the case that that results in them being prescribed as terrorists.”
“When you talk about al Qaeda and ISIS, everyone is really clear, they more than met the bar for being a terrorist organisation.”
It appears that a lot of Starmer’s followers have the same concerns as the Lib Dem leader, with new polling revealing that 71 per cent of Labour members believed their party was wrong to proscribe Palestine Action. Only 21% agreed with the government’s decision.
But Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has defended the proscription, saying it is more than "a regular protest group known for occasional stunts".
She added that she was given “disturbing information” about the group that “covered ideas and planning for future attacks”.
Davey says he is unconvinced by Cooper’s words, and believes Palestine Action should have instead been dealt with under existing criminal laws.
He says people arrested for holding banners or wearing t-shirts at peaceful protests in support of Palestine Action are “exercising freedom of speech”.
“This is not what the terrorism legislation was originally intended for,” Davey says.
“In this situation, we are unconvinced that the bar was cleared on Palestine Action and the way it has then turned out is that people just exercising their democratic rights have been arrested.
“I think that should make us all really worried.”
What’s The News Agents’ take?
The proscription is “unusual” even under terrorist legislation, not only because “little old ladies” and people not normally associated with terrorism are being arrested, Lewis says, but also because most groups which have been proscribed in the past are foreign-linked terrorist organisations, such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah.
“Proscription has typically been applied to groups which are linked to serious violence and serious threats to life,” Lewis Goodall says.
“The argument is that Palestine Action’s activities involve property damage and sabotage - albeit with a political intent and against government property and military bases - therefore the proscription has been applied unduly harshly.”
However, under the Terrorism Act, passed in 2000, the definition of terrorist action includes serious damage to property, threats designed to influence the government or an international government and threats made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, ideological cause.
“Under the legislation, there's no doubt that the Home Secretary can say: ‘Yeah, this is a terrorist group’,” Lewis says.
“The question is whether she ought to have that power, and whether she used that power, that discretion, wisely.”
The problem for the government, he adds, is that whether you think it should have been proscribed or not, the optics are terrible when peaceful protesters being arrested is the net result of the decision.
Of the 500 or so people arrested following the Palestine Action protest in London, Jon suspects that most were there because they want to see action taken towards peace in Gaza.
“There is a distinction between being concerned about everything that is unfolding in Gaza and actually supporting the group,” he says.
“I suspect they're less interested in some of the things that Palestine Action has done.”
But whether they simply want to see more support for Gaza, or support terrorist activity, the consequence as a result of the proscription is the same - arrest and a potential prison sentence.
“Yvette Cooper 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 allied with support for Palestine itself – would be getting arrested.
“Whatever you think about the group itself, the optics of seeing these people hauled away for what appears pretty innocuous is a terrible look for British democracy.”