Labour MPs’ DESPERATE Defence of Palestine Action Proscription

Quick Overview

Labour MPs are reportedly starting to doubt the wisdom of proscribing "Palestine Action," with former cabinet member Peter Hain suggesting the government is "digging itself into a hole" and that the ban is based on "misinformation" and "shite." Hain argues that the group's actions, primarily minor property damage like graffiti and vandalism, do not constitute terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, which requires "serious damage to property" or actual violence. Meanwhile, another Labour MP, Stella Creasy, also criticizes the ban, highlighting that her own research and the government's own reports indicate that "Palestine Action" has not engaged in violence against individuals or pre-meditated harm, making the proscription politically motivated and factually unsupported.

Key Points: Former Labour cabinet minister Peter Hain criticizes the UK government's proscription of "Palestine Action," calling it a "desperate" move and suggesting the government is "digging itself into a hole." Hain argues that the ban is based on "misinformation" and "shite," asserting that "Palestine Action's" activities, such as graffiti and vandalism, do not constitute terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, which requires "serious damage to property" or actual violence. Labour MP Stella Creasy also questions the proscription, stating that her own research and government reports indicate the group has not engaged in violence against individuals, and the evidence presented for the ban was primarily related to property damage. Creasy highlights that the proscription is "politically motivated" and not based on the evidence, suggesting that the government has selectively applied anti-terrorism laws. A Guardian report cited suggests that banning "Palestine Action" would be "relatively novel" as there's no known precedent for proscribing an organization solely based on "use or threat of action involving serious damage to property." The report further indicates that the proscription justification was based on property damage, not violence against people, and that the group has never called for or engaged in terrorism. Creasy implies that MPs who supported the ban may come to regret it, as the evidence does not support classifying "Palestine Action" as a terrorist organization.