Elana Roberts and Sol White
Terrorist. Are we allowing our fear of what this word represents to make us complicit in the growing imposition on free speech? Or worse, as justification to let people starve to death? All through 2025, the UK witnessed growing discussion and unrest about the meaning of ‘protest’ and ‘terrorism.’ Tens of thousands gathered for pro-Palestine marches all over the country and in Oxford specifically, there were several protests and demonstrations, including the occupation of the Radcliffe Camera in January 2025.
The right to protest is a crucial part of democracy, which the UK government is under obligation to protect. Yet, after the summer saw an unprecedented number of protests from both ends of the political spectrum, the Crime and Policing Bill has returned to Parliament. While the bill has not yet been passed, if enacted, it would restrict protests further, and give the police more control over protests, including permitting them to put a ban on face-covering at protest events.
In the summer, Parliament voted to proscribe Palestine Action, meaning that any members of the organisation, or its supporters, can be labelled as terrorists. In the last three months, Palestine Action members in prisons across the UK went on hunger strike, only to be ignored by the government even on the brink of critical medical condition. Not only should we be demanding fair treatment for these people, but alarm bells should be ringing: terrorism is increasingly being used to portray protesters as threats to society.
Under UK law, terrorism is defined as the use of threat of one or more specific actions, where these actions are designed to influence the government, international governmental organisations or the public. This must also be done with the goal of promoting a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
With these developments and this definition in mind, we must consider what it means to be a terrorist in 2026.
The Proscription of Palestine Action
On 2 July 2025, the UK Parliament voted in favour of adding Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisations under the UK Terrorism Act 2000. The organisation, which described itself on its website as a “direct action movement committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime,” was proscribed due to its perceived threat to key national infrastructure and defence firms within the UK.
Proscribing an organisation makes it a criminal offence to be a member of the group or to show support for it. This can be as little as holding a sign proclaiming support for the organisation. If found guilty of this offence, conviction can carry a prison sentence of up to 14 years. Since 5 July, over 1,600 individuals have been arrested for showing support for Palestine Action at protests held to call for the de-proscription of Palestine Action.
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, was granted permission to challenge the proscription in London’s High Court in July 2025. The Court determined that the proscription could arguably be seen as a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression. In September, the British Home Office unsuccessfully requested that the Court of Appeal overturn the July ruling. It now requires a challenge to proscription to be heard by a specialist tribunal instead of the court.
The Significance of Proscribing Palestine Action
To understand why the proscription of Palestine Action and other groups has been so controversial requires an assessment of the law that governs this area. Designation of proscribed organisations is firstly controlled by Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000. The key provisions are as follows:
- Section 3(3) of the Act gives the Home Secretary the power to add an organisation to the list of proscribed organisations.
This designation must be qualified by a legal test, which the act also outlines:
- Section 3(5) defines what it means to be “concerned in terrorism”. An organisation is concerned in terrorism if it: (i) commits or participates in acts of terrorism (ii) prepares for terrorism (iii) encourages or promotes terrorism (iv) or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
For fairly obvious reasons, due to their generality, these are easy tests to qualify. The deliberately low threshold allows the Home Secretary to make a judgment based on indirect or supportive activities, largely because proscription was designed to be preventative, not punitive. The decision is judged on a “reasonable belief” standard, which means that the Home Secretary need only believe reasonably that the organisation is concerned with terrorism. This is not the criminal standard (“beyond reasonable doubt”). In fact, not even the less stringent civil standard strictly applies. It is primarily a subjective executive judgment, which simply must not be irrational, i.e. unfounded or based on unreliable evidence.
The Home Secretary may rely on classified, uncorroborated or non-disclosable intelligence, and the group in question does not need to pose a direct threat to the UK. The proscription must then pass through Parliament, which it usually does without issue.
There has only been one successful major case of de-proscription: the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran, which took years of litigation and is considered an exceptional case. The Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission ordered the group to be removed from the list, saying that the Secretary’s reasoning was legally flawed, with the Court of Appeal affirming this decision.
Security analysts like Tania Zessig say proscription serves multiple purposes. Once an organisation is banned, displaying its symbols, arranging meetings on its behalf, or expressing support for it all become criminal offences. The Home Office argues this restricts a group’s ability to recruit, fundraise, or spread propaganda inside the UK. It also enables law enforcement to seize assets, dismantle networks, and prosecute individuals linked to the organisation.
Officials maintain that the process is evidence-led. Intelligence agencies provide assessments to the Home Office, which consults across government before the Home Secretary makes a final decision. Parliament must then approve the proscription order – a step which ministers say provides democratic oversight.
Critics from civil liberties groups such as Liberty have long argued that the criteria for proscription are broad and risk capturing political groups with no clear link to terrorism. They also warn that the ban can have a chilling effect on academic research, media coverage, and humanitarian engagement in conflict zones. The government insists that safeguards exist, including a statutory right for organisations to appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission.
More than 80 organisations are currently proscribed in the UK, ranging from Islamist militant groups to far-right organisations. Ministers say that the measure remains a vital part of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy, allowing them to respond quickly to evolving threats. However, as Liberty’s challenge shows, debate continues over how the power should be used, and how to balance national security with freedom of expression and association.
But with groups like Palestine Action posing no clear direct threat to the UK, having no organised force and largely being composed of retirees and students (as the High Court determined), deep questions have been raised as to why it has been grouped with genuinely dangerous groups.
The Reasons for Palestine Action’s Proscription
Active in the UK since July 2020, Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for a number of protests and direct actions taken to disrupt the Israeli military. The UK Government claimed that acts against key national infrastructure and defence firms, as well as the encouragement of radical activity against private companies operating in the UK, justify the proscription of Palestine Action.
In particular, an explanatory memorandum notes the attacks on Thales in Glasgow in 2022, and the damages to Elbit Systems UK in Bristol in 2024 as having caused “hundreds of millions of pounds worth of criminal damage and lost revenue”. In June 2025, the break-in at the RAF Brize Norton base seemed to be the final straw, triggering the proscription.
Thales, 2022.
Former UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper stated that the Palestine Action attack on the Thales defence factory in Glasgow on 1 June 2022, caused “over a million pounds-worth of damage, including to parts essential to submarines”. Five members of Palestine Action Scotland climbed onto the roof of the factory, unfurled several banners including the Palestinian flag, and set off pyrotechnics. A smoke bomb was also deployed in an area where staff were evacuating the building, according to the Glasgow Sheriff Court. There were no reported injuries.
The Thales Group is a French company which has operations in 68 different countries around the world. The company has partnerships with Israeli companies, and has sold several electronic components for communication systems since 2018. It was targeted by the Palestine Action members to raise attention to their connection to Israel, and protest the genocide against the Palestinian people.
Elbit Systems, 2024.
On 6 August 2024, six Palestine Action members broke into an Elbit Systems factory in Filton, just outside of Bristol. This was not the first attack on Elbit Systems facilities; their bases across the UK have been subject to several attacks, largely involving damaging equipment and painting the buildings red.
Elbit Systems is a defence company which has described itself as the “backbone” of the IDF drone fleet, which was a significant tool of destruction in the attacks on Gaza. On the Palestine Action website, the group argued that by disrupting Elbit Systems UK’s activities, they were “undermining Elbit’s profiteering from Israel’s daily massacres”.
The six activists involved were arrested, and accused of threatening unlawful violence during the attack, with Samuel Corner accused of causing grievous bodily harm to a police sergeant. Further activists were arrested in connection to the attack. Together, they are referred to as the Filton 24.
Brize Norton, 2025.
The action that may have proved decisive in triggering the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was the 20 June 2025 break-in to Brize Norton Royal Air Force base by five Palestine Action members, who later became known as the Brize Norton 5. In this attack, the activists sprayed red paint onto two Voyager aircraft, which are commonly used for air-to-air refuelling. Palestine Action alleged that these Voyager aircraft have been used in British intelligence missions which support the Israeli government, and the Israeli air forces. Just weeks later, the UK Parliament voted to proscribe Palestine Action.
Huda Ammori stated in response to the proscription that “Spraying red paint on war planes is not terrorism. […] It is the Israeli Defense Forces and all those who arm and enable their war crimes who are the terrorists”.
The Hunger Strikes
Following arrest, several Palestine Action members have continued their protest from prison. On 2 November 2025, eight Palestine Action members held on remand in prisons across the UK began a hunger strike. The use of hunger strikes as a form of protest during imprisonment is a dangerous tactic deployed to raise awareness to a cause after all other ability to protest has been taken away, at great risk to the protester’s health.
The hunger strikers demanded immediate bail, the de-proscription of Palestine Action, and an end to the censorship of their mail and reading while in prison. The hunger strikes have triggered a number of supportive protests. On 17 December, protesters gathered outside HMP Bronzefield to call for an ambulance to be allowed into the prison for Qesser Zuhrah, one of the hunger strikers who was severely ill after 46 days of refusing any food. Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana attended the protest to highlight the urgency of Zuhrah’s condition.
The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, an independent organisation seeking to promote Palestinian rights, stated that the protesters were “facing charges where bail is usually granted” and that “their continued detention appears designed to restrict their ability to access legal protections”. The prisoners have described their mail and communications being restricted without explanation, alongside access to books being blocked and being banned from certain prison jobs for “security reasons”.
There was a significant lack of response from the government, with many calling for Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy to respond to the strikers’ demands, or at least meet with their representatives. The last three hunger strikers, apart from Umer Khalid, ended their hunger strikes on 14 January 2026 after the British government met their demands by choosing not to grant Elbit Systems UK a £2bn contract. The government did not address the hunger strikers’ demands directly.
The Guardian stated that the Palestine Action hunger strike is “believed to be the biggest coordinated hunger strikes in the UK since those by IRA prisoners in 1981″. The IRA prisoners went on hunger strike protesting the repeal of ‘political’ status for Republican prisoners five years earlier and seeking its reintroduction. Their hunger strike remarkably transformed Northern Ireland’s troubles.
By the end of the Palestine Action hunger strikes, Heba Muraisi, 31, had reached almost 73 days of refusing food and her health was in critical condition. Umer Khalid continued his hunger strike until 25 January 2026, when he was taken to intensive care with organ failure after having begun to refuse water on 23 January.
Acquittal of Palestine Action Members
On 4 February, the six people arrested for breaking into the Elbit Systems factory were acquitted of several charges by a jury. Some members of the Filton 6 had been in pretrial detention for over 500 days at this point, making their release a triumph both for themselves and for their cause.
In their trial, lead barrister Rajiv Menon KC argued that the Filton 6 strongly believed that the action of attacking the factory would prevent slaughter in Gaza. During the trial, the court noted that posters had been pasted in the surrounding area, with phrases like “Jury equity is when a jury acquits someone on moral grounds”, and “Jurors can give a not guilty verdict even when they believe a defendant has broken the law”.
Jury equity is indeed the right of the jury to acquit according to their conscience. Fatema Rajwani, one of the Filton 6, has stated that, “on seeing all the evidence in the case it was clear to [the jurors] that our only intention was to dismantle weapons being used in a genocide”.
Ultimately, the jury did not reach a verdict for the charge of criminal damage against any of the Filton 6, or on the violent disorder charges against three of the Filton 6. The Crown Prosecution Service has indicated that it is pursuing a retrial, in which the defendants could be charged on these accounts.
Overturn of the Proscription
The UK government’s assessment that Palestine Action should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation was deemed incorrect by the High Court in February 2026. The court ruled the ban was unlawful on two primary grounds. First, it was a “disproportionate” interference with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Second, the then-Home Secretary Cooper had failed to follow the government’s own policy on proscription by taking into account “significant disruptive benefits” as a factor for the ban, an approach the court found to be contrary to the policy’s purpose.
Central to the court’s reasoning was the distinction between criminal damage and terrorism. The judges acknowledged that Palestine Action uses some criminality to promote its political cause, noting that “a very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action”. However, they concluded that “the nature and scale of its activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription”. The court emphasised that for any criminal acts, including those that might meet a narrow definition of terrorism, “the general criminal law remains available” to prosecute those responsible, making the extreme step of a terrorism designation unnecessary and disproportionate.
Despite the High Court’s ruling, the government’s initial ban saw significant public support, particularly from groups concerned with Jewish community safety. The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, the largest Jewish communal organisation, voiced strong backing for the government’s position, expressing deep concern over the ruling and urging an appeal. They argued that Palestine Action had “repeatedly targeted buildings hosting Jewish communal institutions, Jewish-owned businesses, or sites associated with Israel, in ways that cause fear and disruption far beyond the immediate protest sites”.
The government’s case was also reinforced by the estimated scale of the group’s actions, with the RAF Brize Norton incident alone causing approximately £7 million in damage to two Voyager aircraft, a figure that underlines why former-Home Secretary Cooper moved to proscribe the group immediately after the June 2025 raid. The Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp, also supported the appeal, insisting that “there can be no hesitation when public safety and national security are at stake”.
Looking forward?
On 20 February, 17 other members of the Filton 24 were granted bail, allowing them greater freedom of movement before their trials. The decision has been met with immense joy from their friends, family and supporters, with a spokesperson for the Filton 24 Defence Committee calling it a “monumental victory”.
There is no doubt that the court’s recent decision has sparked hope in those concerned over the treatment of the Palestine Action activists and the growing crackdown on protest groups and demonstrations. The many individuals arrested for showing signs displaying their support for Palestine Action likely feel vindicated at the court ruling for the de-proscription, a truly historic moment.
Nevertheless, the government is still seeking to appeal the court’s decision, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood publicly stating her disappointment in the outcome. In many ways, the government’s decision to condemn this group and its supporters has been unusually intense, and their decision to continue attempting to suppress it speaks volumes about their perspective toward protest.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. If anything, the past year has shown us the extent to which people from all ranges of the political spectrum rely on this right. Or at the very least, desire the ability to protest freely without fear of being labelled a terrorist. On this note, we urge you to consider for yourself – who do you think is a terrorist in 2026?