Protest and Public Debate : The Palestine Action Ban
In July 2025, the UK government officially banned Palestine Action, a direct-action protest group, under the Terrorism Act 2000. This was the first time that a non-violent campaign group has been ruled as a terrorist organisation under UK law. The decision triggered a wave of arrests, as more than 100 people across the country were detained under Section 13 of the Act, which criminalises showing support for a banned organisation. Arrests took place in major cities including London, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Bristol, with many of those detained simply holding placards or chanting slogans in support of the group. Some protesters were elderly citizens, and the reports suggest that many of the demonstrations were peaceful in nature.
The ban has sparked serious concerns about civil liberties, with critics arguing that it blurs the line between violent extremism and legitimate protest. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, have warned that this sets a worrying precedent. Under current law, even non-violent expressions of support—like sharing a social media post or attending a rally—could be considered criminal. This raises questions about the freedom to protest, especially when the banned group has a history of targeting property, not people, in its campaigns.
A judicial review has been launched to challenge the decision, and campaigners are hopeful that the courts may overturn the ban. The Public Order Act 2023, for example, introduced new police powers and created offences like “locking-on,” allowing police to arrest demonstrators for actions that previously would have been seen as peaceful civil disobedience.
What makes this development especially significant is that it reflects a growing trend in UK politics: increased restrictions on protest rights in the name of public order and security. While governments do have a responsibility to maintain safety, you could argue that these measures disproportionately target groups who challenge political norms or may hurt corporate interests.
For those reading this that may be interested in law or political debate it’s especially interesting as it touches on key constitutional principles like freedom of speech, the right to protest, the limits of executive power and raises difficult questions about how far the state should go in regulating these protests.
In an era where trust in government is already low, decisions like these are likely to fuel further dissent to government.