On the brisk mornings of late November 2025, a storm of controversy swept through the United Kingdom’s legal and activist communities, as the government’s decision to designate the protest group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization faced both fierce legal challenge and a wave of public dissent. This unprecedented move—placing a civil disobedience group in the same category as organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIS—has ignited debates about civil liberties, the boundaries of protest, and the future of political dissent in Britain.
The controversy reached a boiling point on November 26, when Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, launched a high-profile legal battle at London’s Royal Courts of Justice. According to Al Jazeera, Ammori’s legal team argued that the ban represented “one of the most extreme attacks on civil liberties in recent British history – a measure condemned across the political spectrum as an affront to our democracy and an unjustifiable drain on counterterror resources that should be focused on actual threats to the public.” The hearing, which began on Wednesday and was expected to stretch into Thursday with a possible third day to be scheduled, quickly became the focal point for supporters and critics alike.
Outside the imposing High Court, the atmosphere was tense but determined. Protesters—students, pensioners, teachers, and even an 83-year-old retired vicar—gathered in solidarity, holding placards reading, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” Some demonstrators could be seen draped in silver heat blankets, braving the cold to make their voices heard. As Al Jazeera reported, police presence was heavy, and officers began arresting those who displayed open support for the proscribed group, physically carrying away those who resisted. The protest was organized by the campaign group Defend Our Juries, which has been at the forefront of opposing the ban.
The legal and political drama was mirrored in Scotland, where on November 27, Scottish podcasters David McGuiness and David Milligan—known as The Two Davies—were arrested under the UK Terrorism Act 2000. According to The National, the pair had published a video criticizing the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action. McGuiness recounted his experience in a Facebook video: “The serious crime squad came to my front door and arrested me under section one of the Criminal Justice Act Scotland, where I was taken to Motherwell Police station, where I was then charged under section 12 of the UK Terrorism Act. So, we went from being an extremist to being a bloody terrorist.” He added, “I believe that my colleague and co-presenter Mr. Milligan is in Clydebank cop shop right now, where he is also being charged under the Terrorism Act.” Both men were released with no restrictions, but McGuiness wryly noted, “So folks, I guess I’m now on the watch list officially.”
The UK government’s move to proscribe Palestine Action came in July 2025, following a series of high-profile direct actions by the group. The catalyst was a break-in at RAF Brize Norton air base in southern England, where activists caused an estimated £7 million ($9.3 million) in damage to two military aircraft. The Home Office, in a statement before the legal challenge, accused Palestine Action of “an escalating campaign involving not just sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure, but also intimidation and alleged violence and serious injuries to individuals.”
Yet, lawyers representing Ammori argued that the proscription was unprecedented and disproportionate. In court, Raza Husain KC, leading Ammori’s legal team, pointed out that Britain’s own Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre found that Palestine Action does not “advocate for violence against persons.” Husain argued, “If it was a violent group, you would think the Secretary of State would rely on the violence link, which she does not.” He likened the group’s tactics to Britain’s “long tradition of direct action,” drawing parallels to the suffragettes and civil rights activists like Rosa Parks. “The Suffragettes would have been liable to proscription if the regime had been in force at the turn of the 20th century,” Husain noted in written submissions.
The government, however, maintained that the ban was both necessary and proportionate. James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, told the court that proscription was intended “to disrupt Palestine Action’s targeting of arms companies making weapons for Israel.” Eadie emphasized that under current terror legislation, property damage can qualify as terrorism if it is done to “influence” government or “intimidate” the public, and is “for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.” In written submissions, Eadie clarified, “The impact of proscription is limited to prohibiting particular activity” and does not extend to “political speech generally.”
The ripple effects of the ban have been swift and far-reaching. Since July, at least 2,300 people have been arrested for showing support for Palestine Action, with 254 charged with lesser offences that can carry up to six months in prison, according to protest organizers and the Metropolitan Police. Civil liberties groups have intervened in the legal proceedings, arguing that the government’s actions amount to an authoritarian restriction on protest and render the UK an “international outlier.” The United Nations human rights chief Volker Turk described the ban as “disproportionate and unnecessary,” while the Council of Europe criticized the “excessive limits” imposed on the right to protest.
Questions about the impartiality of the judicial process have also surfaced. Justice Martin Chamberlain, initially slated to oversee the legal challenge, was removed from the case at the last minute without explanation. Activist groups like Defend Our Juries expressed concern that two of the replacement judges had connections that “at least raise the appearance of a conflict of interest.” Emily Apple, spokesperson for Campaign Against Arms Trade, remarked that the backgrounds of Dame Victoria Sharp and Justice Jonathan Swift raise “serious questions around the lack of impartiality and transparency in our judicial system, and whether this is now a pattern in significant legal cases concerning Palestine.”
Palestine Action, founded in 2020, has focused its direct-action campaigns on weapons factories, particularly those owned by Israeli defense giant Elbit Systems. The group’s stated mission—outlined on its now-blocked website—is to end “global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime.” Its escalating actions, especially amid the ongoing war in Gaza, have drawn both condemnation and admiration, depending on one’s perspective. Six members are currently on trial for aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and violent disorder after a raid on an Elbit facility, with one individual accused of causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer. All deny the charges.
The government insists that the proscription targets only support for Palestine Action, not broader protests in favor of Palestinian rights or against Israel’s actions in Gaza. Yet, lawyers for Ammori contend that the chilling effect has been profound, with pro-Palestinian protesters questioned by police even when not expressing support for the group. The legal challenge is ongoing, with a ruling expected at a later date. As the courtroom drama unfolds and protests continue across the UK, the nation finds itself at a crossroads—grappling with the delicate balance between security, civil liberties, and the enduring right to dissent.
With the outcome still uncertain, the debates sparked by the proscription of Palestine Action have already left an indelible mark on Britain’s political and legal landscape, forcing a reckoning with the principles that underpin its democracy.
