Baroness Jenny Jones said proscribing Palestine Action 'undermines civil liberties'
An attempt in the House of Lords to stop the government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation has been defeated. The Green Party peer Baroness Jenny Jones proposed a ‘motion of regret’ in the House of Lords which stated that the proscription of Palestine Action ‘undermines civil liberties, including civil disobedience’, is a ‘misuse of anti-terrorism legislation’, and ‘criminalises support for a protest group, thereby creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression‘.
16 peers voted for Jones’ motion, with 144 peers voting against.
Proscribing Palestine Action would make being a member of the group or expressing support of it a criminal offence punishable by a maximum of 14 years in prison. Palestine Action describes itself as “a direct action movement committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime.”
Had it passed, the motion of regret would not have in itself blocked the proscription of Palestine Action. However, it would have formally recorded the Lords’ disagreement with the decision and would have made implementing the decision more challenging for the government to implement.
Proposing the motion, Baroness Jones said: “If you want Palestine Action to disappear, then stop sending arms to Israel and giving military support to a foreign government engaged in ethnic cleansing.
“There are many things Palestine Action has done I don’t agree with, but spraying paint on refuelling planes that campaigners believe are used to help the ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not terrorism. It’s criminal damage, which we already have laws for.”
The Labour peer Lord Peter Hain, who was a government minister under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and a prominent anti-Apartheid activist before that, supported Jones’ motion.
Speaking in the debate, Hain said: “This government is treating Palestine Action as equivalent to Islamic State or al-Qaida, which is intellectually bankrupt, politically unprincipled and morally wrong. Frankly I am deeply ashamed. And that is why I support this regret amendment.”
Among the other people to speak against proscribing Palestine Action was the former TUC General Secretary Baroness Frances O’Grady.
Those speaking in favour of proscribing Palestine Action included the Labour peer Luciana Berger and the crossbench peer Lord John Woodcock.
The motion of regret was proposed as the Lords was debating the Statutory Instrument to proscribe three groups as terrorist organisations – Palestine Action, Maniacs Mulder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. MPs yesterday (July 2) voted to proscribe the three organisations with 385 votes in favour and 26 votes against.
Neither the House of Commons nor the House of Lords were able to vote on the three organisations separately. As such, many peers and MPs may not have voted against the proscription of Palestine Action in order to not also vote against the proscription of the two other groups, both of which are white supremacist organisations.
In a statement, the home secretary Yvette Cooper said of the decision to proscribe the groups: “Maniacs Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Russian Imperial Movement have each passed the threshold for proscription based on clear national security evidence and assessments.
“The right to protest and the right to free speech are the cornerstone of our democracy and there are countless campaign groups that freely exercise those rights. Violence and serious criminal damage has no place in legitimate protests.”
The House of Lords subsequently voted to support the proscription of the three groups – including Palestine Action – and their proscription could come into force as early as the weekend.
Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.