The Silencing of Dissent

Introduction

On 4 October 2025, the ambient sounds of a busy Saturday in central London were punctuated by a profound silence. In Trafalgar Square, a space historically resonant with the clamour of public assembly and dissent, approximately one thousand individuals gathered for a silent vigil ²⁸. They sat with signs bearing the words, "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action" ²⁸. This act of quiet defiance was a direct challenge to the British government's recent decision to proscribe Palestine Action, a direct-action network, as a terrorist organisation ⁷. The response from the Metropolitan Police was unequivocal. By the end of the day, nearly 500 people had been arrested, the vast majority for the offence of supporting a proscribed organisation ⁷.

The events of that day brought into sharp focus a growing tension in the United Kingdom between the state's imperative to ensure national security and the fundamental rights of its citizens to protest and express dissenting political opinions. The proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 marked a significant and controversial development in the application of counter-terrorism legislation to a protest group known for its direct-action tactics, primarily targeting companies involved in the arms trade with Israel ¹⁵. The government contended that the group's activities, which included property damage, had crossed a threshold into terrorism, endangering national security ⁵. Conversely, a broad coalition of civil liberties groups, legal scholars, and international human rights bodies condemned the move as a dangerous overreach, arguing that it conflated criminal damage with terrorism and created a chilling effect on free speech ^{3, 27}.

The mass arrests at the subsequent silent vigil, an event meticulously organised to be peaceful, amplified these concerns. The sight of hundreds of citizens, including retirees and a vicar, being led away by police for holding placards, reverberated through the national and international media, igniting a fierce debate about the health of British democracy ^{4, 11}. This article will undertake a detailed examination of the proscription of Palestine Action and the protest of 4 October 2025, placing these events within their broader legal, political, and historical contexts. It will provide a scholarly, in-depth analysis of the arguments for and against the ban, the legal framework that enabled it, and the profound implications for civil liberties in the United Kingdom.

Background

The proscription of Palestine Action and the subsequent mass arrests did not occur in a vacuum. They were the culmination of a years-long campaign of direct action by the group, a shifting political landscape around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and an evolving legal framework for managing protest and terrorism in the UK.

The Rise of Palestine Action and its Campaign Against Elbit Systems

Palestine Action was founded in July 2020 by Huda Ammori and Richard Barnard ^{3, 39}. The group's stated aim was to end what it describes as British complicity in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories by targeting companies involved in the arms trade with Israel ^{3, 39}. From its inception, Palestine Action adopted a strategy of direct action, a departure from more traditional forms of protest such as marches and petitions ³⁸. Its primary target has been Elbit Systems, Israel's largest arms manufacturer, and its subsidiaries in the UK ^{3, 20}. Elbit Systems provides a significant portion of the drones used by the Israeli military, along with other advanced weaponry and surveillance technology ²⁰.

Palestine Action's tactics have included blockading factories, occupying rooftops, smashing windows, and dousing buildings in red paint to symbolise bloodshed ^{6, 25}. These actions have been highly disruptive and have resulted in numerous arrests and criminal damage charges against its activists ^{3, 17}. The group has been transparent about its methods, often publicising its actions through social media and press releases, framing them as necessary interventions to prevent greater crimes ⁴⁰.

The campaign against Elbit Systems has had a tangible impact. Several Elbit-linked sites have been forced to close, either permanently or temporarily, and the company has incurred significant financial costs due to property damage and increased security measures ^{9, 13, 14}. Palestine Action and its supporters have hailed these as victories, demonstrating the efficacy of their direct-action strategy ^{11, 23}. However, these same actions have been condemned by the government and others as criminal and intimidating ⁹.

The Proscription of Palestine Action

The tipping point for the government was an incident in June 2025, when Palestine Action activists breached the security of RAF Brize Norton, the UK's largest airbase ⁸. Using electric scooters, they gained access to the airfield and used repurposed fire extinguishers to spray red paint into the engines of two Royal Air Force Airbus A330 MRTT refuelling planes ^{3, 8}. The group claimed the action was to protest the UK's alleged role in supporting Israeli military operations ⁸.

The incursion into a major military installation was viewed by the government as a serious escalation and a threat to national security. On 23 June 2025, the then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced the government's intention to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation ⁵. The proscription order was laid before Parliament and, on 2 July 2025, the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of the ban, by 385 votes to 26 ^{3, 12}. The order came into effect on 5 July 2025, making it a criminal offence to belong to, invite support for, or display articles in public that arouse reasonable suspicion of membership or support for Palestine Action ^{3, 19}. The penalties for such offences are severe, with a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison ¹⁹.

The government justified the proscription by arguing that Palestine Action's activities had moved beyond legitimate protest and met the definition of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000 ⁵. This Act defines terrorism as the use or threat of action designed to influence the government or intimidate the public for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause, and involves serious violence against a person, serious damage to property, or endangers a person's life ¹⁶. The government contended that the "serious damage to property" clause was applicable to Palestine Action's activities ²⁸.

The Legal and Political Context of Proscription in the UK

The power to proscribe organisations in the UK has a long history, initially developed in the context of the conflict in Northern Ireland ^{30, 33}. The Terrorism Act 2000, introduced in the post-Good Friday Agreement era and before the 9/11 attacks, broadened these powers to include international and domestic groups ³⁴. The list of proscribed organisations is extensive, encompassing groups with a wide range of ideologies, from Islamist extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS to neo-Nazi organisations ⁴².

However, the proscription of Palestine Action was unprecedented in that it was the first time a direct-action protest group had been banned under this legislation ^{15, 22}. This raised profound questions about the application of counter-terrorism law to forms of political protest that, while potentially criminal, do not involve violence against people. Critics argued that existing criminal law for offences such as criminal damage, aggravated trespass, and conspiracy were sufficient to address the unlawful activities of Palestine Action's members, and that resorting to the Terrorism Act was a disproportionate and dangerous escalation ³².

The political context surrounding the proscription was also significant. The decision was made by a Labour government, a party with a long history of supporting the right to protest. This led to accusations of hypocrisy and a betrayal of the party's core values from some on the left ³⁵. The proscription also took place against a backdrop of increasing public concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza, with large-scale protests in support of Palestinian rights becoming a regular feature in British cities ³⁷. The government's decision was therefore seen by many as an attempt to suppress a growing and vocal protest movement.

The Protest of 4 October 2025 and the Mass Arrests

In response to the ban, a coalition of groups, with Defend Our Juries at the forefront, organised a series of protests aimed at challenging the proscription through mass civil disobedience ^{6, 10, 39}. Defend Our Juries is a campaign group that advocates for the right of juries to acquit defendants according to their conscience, and it has been active in supporting a range of protest movements ⁶. The strategy was simple and powerful: to openly defy the ban in a peaceful and non-violent manner, thereby highlighting what they saw as the absurdity and injustice of the law ³⁵.

The silent vigil on 4 October 2025 was the largest of these protests. The choice of a silent vigil was a deliberate tactic to underscore the peaceful intent of the demonstrators and to contrast with the government's characterisation of Palestine Action as a violent, terrorist organisation ²⁸. The event was held in the shadow of a recent terror attack at a synagogue in Manchester, and both the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, and the Metropolitan Police had urged the organisers to postpone the protest, citing concerns about community tensions and the strain on police resources ^{9, 26}. However, the organisers, Defend Our Juries, refused, arguing that cancelling a peaceful protest would be to "let terror win" and that it was more important than ever to defend the right to protest ^{10, 26}.

The police response was pre-planned and extensive. As soon as protesters displayed signs expressing support for Palestine Action, officers began making arrests ⁷. The process was slow and methodical, with each arrest requiring several officers, as many of the seated protesters had to be physically carried away ¹¹. The final arrest toll was 492, with 488 of those for supporting a proscribed organisation ⁷. The scale of the arrests, and the peaceful nature of the protest, drew widespread condemnation.

The Debate Over the Proscription and the Arrests

The proscription of Palestine Action and the mass arrests at the subsequent protest have ignited a fierce and multifaceted debate in the United Kingdom. The central question is where the line should be drawn between legitimate, albeit disruptive, protest and terrorism.

The Government's Position

The government has consistently defended its decision to proscribe Palestine Action, arguing that it was a necessary and proportionate response to the group's escalating campaign of criminal damage, which it contends posed a threat to national security ^{5, 27}. In a statement to Parliament, the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, detailed a litany of incidents involving Palestine Action, which she said amounted to "aggressive and intimidatory attacks against businesses, institutions and the public" ³².

The government has also emphasised that the proscription is not intended to stifle legitimate protest or criticism of the Israeli government ³². However, it maintains that Palestine Action's methods fall outside the bounds of acceptable protest and into the realm of terrorism as defined by UK law. The Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, speaking in the House of Commons, stated that Palestine Action was not a "legitimate protest group" and that its actions were intended to "weaken our national security" ^{12, 16}.

The Opposition to the Proscription

The opposition to the proscription of Palestine Action has been broad and vocal, coming from a diverse range of voices including civil liberties organisations, human rights lawyers, academics, and international bodies.

Amnesty International UK and Liberty, two of the UK's leading human rights organisations, have been at the forefront of the campaign against the ban ²¹. Both organisations have argued that the UK's definition of terrorism is overly broad and that the proscription of Palestine Action is a "disturbing legal overreach" and a "shocking escalation of the government's crackdown on protest" ^{21, 27, 32}. They contend that the government is misusing counter-terrorism legislation to silence a protest group whose tactics it disapproves of, and that this sets a dangerous precedent for the future of protest in the UK ^{21, 25}.

This view is shared by the United Nations Human Rights Chief, Volker Türk, who warned that the ban was a "disturbing" misuse of counter-terrorism legislation and risked hindering the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms ^{3, 31}. Legal experts have also raised concerns, pointing out that the proscription could have a significant "chilling effect" on free speech, deterring people from participating in protests or expressing views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for fear of being associated with a proscribed organisation ^{7, 15}.

The ongoing judicial review of the proscription, brought by Palestine Action's co-founder Huda Ammori, will be a crucial test of these arguments ^{2, 3, 4}. The High Court has granted permission for the judicial review to proceed, with the judge acknowledging that it is "reasonably arguable" that the ban is a disproportionate interference with the rights to freedom of expression and assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights ^{3, 4, 7}. The case will be heard in late 2025 and its outcome will have significant implications for the future of protest and counter-terrorism law in the UK ^{3, 4}.

The political opposition to the ban has been more muted, with the Conservative Party largely supporting the government's decision. However, some individual MPs from the Labour Party and other opposition parties have been highly critical. The Green Party leader, Zack Polanski, has called for the proscription to be "withdrawn", describing it as a "draconian crackdown" on the right to protest ^{8, 21}.

The Impact on Elbit Systems

Palestine Action's campaign of direct action has had a demonstrable impact on Elbit Systems' UK operations. The company has reported significant financial losses due to the costs of repairs and enhanced security measures ^{9, 13}. Several of its UK sites have been forced to close, either permanently or temporarily, following sustained protests ^{9, 10, 14, 23}. In 2022, Elbit sold its factory in Oldham after an 18-month campaign by Palestine Action, a move the group hailed as a major victory ¹¹. More recently, in September 2025, it was reported that an Elbit facility in Bristol appeared to have been shut down ^{9, 10}.

While Elbit Systems has publicly downplayed the impact of the protests, attributing site closures to strategic reorganisation, the financial records and the succession of closures suggest that the direct-action campaign has been highly effective in disrupting the company's operations in the UK ^{11, 13}. This has, in turn, fuelled the debate over the legitimacy and efficacy of Palestine Action's tactics. Supporters argue that the disruption of the arms trade is a justifiable and effective means of opposing what they see as war crimes, while critics maintain that such actions are criminal and harmful to the UK economy and its defence industry.

The Broader Implications for Protest and Civil Liberties

The proscription of Palestine Action and the mass arrests of its supporters have raised profound questions about the future of protest and civil liberties in the UK. The case has highlighted the broad and flexible nature of the UK's counter-terrorism legislation and its potential for use against a wider range of dissenting groups.

Civil liberties advocates have long warned that the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 is too broad and could be used to criminalise legitimate forms of protest ^{16, 25}. The proscription of Palestine Action is seen by many as the realisation of these fears. The fact that a group can be designated as a terrorist organisation primarily on the basis of property damage, with no evidence of violence against people, is a significant and worrying development ¹⁵.

The mass arrests at the silent vigil on 4 October have further amplified these concerns. The spectacle of hundreds of peaceful protesters being arrested under counter-terrorism laws for holding placards has been described as a "chilling" demonstration of the state's power to suppress dissent ^{7, 18, 29}. Critics argue that this creates a climate of fear, where individuals are afraid to express their views or participate in protests for fear of being labelled as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers ¹⁵.

The ongoing legal challenge to the proscription will be a critical juncture in this debate. If the courts uphold the ban, it could pave the way for the proscription of other direct-action groups, such as those involved in environmental or animal rights activism, which also use tactics that involve property damage. This would represent a significant contraction of the space for dissent in the UK and a major shift in the balance between state security and individual liberty.

Conclusion

The proscription of Palestine Action and the mass arrests at the protest of 4 October 2025 represent a pivotal moment in the contemporary history of protest and civil liberties in the United Kingdom. The government's decision to deploy the full force of counter-terrorism legislation against a direct-action protest group has ignited a fierce and necessary debate about the nature of terrorism, the limits of legitimate protest, and the health of British democracy.

The government's case rests on the argument that Palestine Action's campaign of criminal damage crossed a line into terrorism, posing a threat to national security that could not be adequately addressed by existing criminal law. This position is supported by a significant majority in Parliament and reflects a broader political consensus that favours a robust approach to national security.

However, the opposition to the proscription is equally compelling. Civil liberties organisations, human rights lawyers, and international bodies have argued with force and clarity that the ban is a disproportionate and dangerous overreach that threatens to criminalise dissent and create a chilling effect on free speech. The mass arrests of peaceful protesters have provided a stark and troubling illustration of these concerns.

The ongoing judicial review of the proscription will be a crucial test of these competing arguments. The outcome will have profound implications, not only for Palestine Action and its supporters, but for the future of protest and the protection of fundamental freedoms in the United Kingdom. The case of Palestine Action has brought into sharp relief the inherent tensions between the state's duty to protect its citizens and its obligation to uphold the democratic rights of assembly and expression. How this tension is resolved will be a defining feature of the political and legal landscape of the UK for years to come.