There’s a line – somewhere between public order and police state – and we’re getting uncomfortably good at pretending we can’t see it.
Today, Palestine Action plans to protest in Westminster. They’re noisy, disruptive, and fond of red paint. They target arms dealers. They’ve broken into airbases and damaged military kit. That’s illegal – and there are already laws for that. Criminal damage? We’ve got a law. Trespass? Ditto. Sabotage? Fill your boots. But that’s not enough for the Home Secretary, who now wants to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation.
Yes – a terrorist organisation. Because nothing says “reasonable proportionality” like lumping a bunch of overzealous activists in with ISIS.
Proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000 means this: the group is banned outright, and anyone who supports them – even by sharing a tweet or standing in solidarity – can be arrested. Their banners become contraband. Their opinions become evidence. Their entire cause is made radioactive by fiat.
And the irony? There’s no trial. No cross-examination. No “you’ve got the wrong end of the rocket launcher, guv.” Just the Home Secretary saying so, Parliament nodding like dashboard dogs, and poof – you’re illegal.
You can appeal, of course. To the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission – a faceless tribunal with secret evidence, closed sessions, and special advocates who aren’t allowed to tell you what’s being said about you. Kafka would need a lie-down.
Eventually, you might get your day in Strasbourg, waving your Article 10 and Article 11 rights like a pair of soggy socks. But that’s years down the line, and by then your movement’s in pieces and your comrades are up on charges for “having a chat about Elbit in the pub.”
Meanwhile, the government gets to say it’s cracking down on extremism. That it’s keeping us safe. That it’s protecting the King’s peace by kicking seven bells out of the right to protest. Because let’s not kid ourselves – this isn’t about safety. It’s about silencing awkward truths. It’s about keeping BAE Systems’ stock price steady and ensuring no grubby activist points out that we’re flogging weapons to a state levelling Rafah, one street at a time.
And it’s not like this is happening in a vacuum. The Met has already used the Public Order Act to shut down Palestine marches outside the BBC, citing Shabbat as justification. Shabbat! As if Jewish people are some kind of human buffer zone for protest management. Even Jewish groups were appalled – but the arrests went ahead anyway.
If Palestine Action is banned, expect a queue: Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, trade unions, striking doctors – all potentially criminalised the moment they become inconvenient. And don’t think for a moment that Farage, with his slurring admiration for Viktor Orbán, wouldn’t run riot with those powers if handed the reins.
We’re not banning violence – we’re banning opposition. And when that becomes normal, we’re in trouble. Because the moment we decide that protesting against war crimes is itself a crime, we’ve surrendered something far more dangerous than a broken window or a red-smeared doorstep.
We’ve surrendered our ability to say: “Not in my name.”
Here's another irony: if hurling red paint at an arms dealer is terrorism, but hurling tariffs at British jobs is diplomacy, then the word has lost all meaning. We’re no longer criminalising the act – we’re criminalising who’s holding the brush. One is denounced as an extremist for trying to halt bomb shipments; the other gets a photo op and a press release. It’s not justice – it’s just power, dressing up as principle. The weak get proscribed, the strong get a trade deal. That’s not law – that’s submission.
19 comments:
For the life of me, I don't understand how chucking (not very much) red paint on an R.A.F. plane can be interpreted as terrorism.
This government is fast losing support. They need to stop and think.
Unfortunately reporting can be so superficial. The original report put out by the BBC on its news webpages was that red paint was sprayed into the planes’ engines using modified fire extinguishers. If that was correct, it’s a very different scenario. These are national security operational aircraft. Either way, at the minimum, it was outrageous action irrespective of your view of the government’s response.
If paint was sprayed (or attempted) into the intakes then that takes the offence up another level. Main outcome of the incident is that the RAF need to take a good look at their security measures.
That’s a fair point, and one that deserves more than a reflexive defence or condemnation. If red paint was indeed sprayed directly into the engines of operational military aircraft, then yes – that escalates the action from symbolic protest to a direct threat to national security infrastructure. Whatever one thinks of Palestine Action’s cause, there’s a line between civil disobedience and sabotage, and if crossed, it rightly triggers legal consequences.
But that’s precisely why we have laws against criminal damage, trespass, and endangering aircraft. These laws exist without needing to redefine the act as terrorism. Proscription under the Terrorism Act is a qualitatively different measure – it doesn’t punish the act, it criminalises association and support. That leap – from prosecuting illegal action to banning the group entirely – isn’t a measured legal step, it’s a political statement. And one that risks conflating genuine threats with political inconvenience.
So yes, the protest may well have crossed a line. But the government’s response, if it involves proscription, may be crossing one too – a line between rule of law and the suppression of dissent. We should be able to hold both thoughts at once.
Absolutely – if paint was sprayed or even attempted to be sprayed into the air intakes of military aircraft, then it moves beyond theatrical protest and into potentially dangerous territory. You don't need to be an aeronautical engineer to grasp the implications of foreign substances in jet engines – it's serious, and should be treated as such under existing criminal law.
But you're right to point to another glaring issue: how on earth was this even possible? If a group of activists can access a secure RAF base and get close enough to tamper with operational aircraft, that’s not just a protest problem – that’s a national security failure. The real question isn’t just what Palestine Action did, but how they got the opportunity to do it. If the roles were reversed – and this were a hostile actor probing our defences – there’d be an urgent inquiry already underway.
So yes, prosecute the offence appropriately. But let’s not lose sight of the uncomfortable truth: the RAF’s security was porous enough to let this happen. That should concern everyone – regardless of politics.
Fully agree. My ‘gripe’ is not getting consistent and accurate reporting.
A quick check on Google confirms that as well as the BBC, Reuters and The Guardian (among others) reported that red paint was sprayed into the planes’ turbines using modified fire extinguishers.
Reported today by the BBC, four people arrested, and held in custody, in relation to this incident. Of course the breach of security in gaining entry to the air base was serious, but I stress my original point that spraying paint into the planes’ engines put this into a different category. Today’s BBC report states:‘Palestine Action said its activists were able to evade security and claimed they had put two air-to-air refuelling tankers "out of service".’ In my book, that rates as far more serious than ‘criminal damage’. It will be interesting to see what charges are brought.
My goodness, in my haste to report what is really at stake here, I overlooked reports that according to the ‘Sun’ the damage has been costed at £15 million, and others stating that the facts arguably amount to treason.
You cite the Sun’s claim of £15 million in damage and others suggesting the offence “arguably amounts to treason”. Let’s unpack both with a touch more rigour than a tabloid headline allows.
The £15 million figure likely relates specifically to the RAF Brize Norton incident involving damage to Voyager aircraft. Broader figures, such as those reported in The Times, suggest that Palestine Action’s campaign has cumulatively caused up to £55 million in disruption and damage nationwide – including £25 million attributed to damage to a single aircraft engine. The actual cost is significant, certainly, but selectively quoting a single estimate in isolation from the wider context risks distortion.
As for the invocation of “treason” – this is where the rhetoric starts to outrun legal and constitutional fact. The label has been enthusiastically adopted by columnists and right-wing pundits, but former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer has made it clear that the acts in question – criminal though they are – do not meet the threshold for either terrorism or treason under UK law. Vandalism, trespass, and even targeting defence infrastructure are serious offences, but calling them “treason” because they challenge the government’s foreign policy is a political gambit, not a sound legal judgement.
Moreover, the protestors’ actions were not indiscriminate or violent toward persons. Their targets were symbolic – and specifically aimed at disrupting the UK’s role in arming a foreign state accused by numerous international bodies of committing war crimes. One may strongly disagree with the methods used, but to equate these acts with betrayal of the nation is to redefine treason as mere dissent.
The danger here is not just rhetorical inflation. It’s the creeping redefinition of legitimate protest as terrorism, and principled objection as betrayal. We’d do well to remember that the history of social and moral progress in this country is littered with similar acts – condemned at the time, but vindicated by history.
I was referring solely to the ‘incident’ at RAF Brize Norton. We should know shortly the details of any criminal charges.
Four of the six people arrested have now been charged with “conspiracy to commit criminal damage, and conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK”. Two are from London and the other two are ‘of no fixed abode’. They are due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court today. The BBC report now states “Damage worth £7m was caused to two Voyager aircraft at the Oxfordshire base on 20 June after they were sprayed with red paint.” This, of course, has nothing to do with action by the Government to proscribe the parent organisation; it’s the proper consequence of serious criminal damage.
The charging of individuals with conspiracy to commit criminal damage and to enter a prohibited site does indeed reflect the legal process at work – as it should. Causing £7 million worth of damage to aircraft, whatever the motivation, will naturally trigger prosecution. But let’s be clear: that’s a matter for the courts, based on existing laws regarding criminal damage and trespass on secure sites. It has nothing to do with whether Palestine Action, as a movement, should be designated a terrorist organisation.
Calls to proscribe the group under terrorism legislation are a political act – not a judicial or policing necessity. The threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000 is not whether you cause damage or get arrested. It’s whether your organisation is involved in serious violence against the public, designed to intimidate a population or influence government policy by force. Palestine Action’s tactics may be extreme and unlawful – but they are targeted, symbolic acts against property. There’s no suggestion of intent to harm the public. That’s why they’re being charged under criminal law, not terrorism law.
If we start slapping the ‘terrorist’ label on every campaign group that breaks the law in pursuit of political aims, we end up in dangerous territory – not least because that same logic would have seen the Suffragettes or the anti-apartheid movement proscribed in their day. This is about drawing a line between unlawful protest and terrorism – and not allowing political discomfort or diplomatic convenience to erase that distinction.
So yes, let the courts try those charged. If found guilty, they’ll face the consequences. But let’s not pretend that prosecuting individuals for criminal damage justifies redefining dissent as terrorism. It doesn't – and we should be very wary of a government that seems increasingly eager to criminalise opposition to its foreign policy under the guise of national security.
I haven’t said anything different. (1) It’s criminal damage (2) It was an operational military target. And, of course, having said this they are entitled to a fair trial. We should know more by the end of today.
The four accused appeared today at the Central Criminal Court. A provisional trial fixture of six to eight weeks has been identified from 18 January 2027. The accused were ordered to remain in custody on remand to a plea hearing in January 2026. The judge, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb, remarked that a trial date in 2027 would be an inordinately long time to be on remand and the possibility of an earlier trial would be considered at the January 2026 plea hearing.
A further person has been charged today and remanded in custody to appear at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) in January 2026. This brings the total number of the accused to five. A Thames Valley Police statement has repeated the figure of £7 million as the likely cost of the damage. Today’s report is more specific that two engines have had to be replaced at a cost of £2.5 million each. Unfortunately the British public, or a substantial element of it, seems unable to see the wood for the trees. Let’s forget the ‘terrorist’ angle. This was planned criminal damage to operational military aircraft. Rightly the ability to enter Brize Norton calls for answers about how site security for such a base could be breached, but the seriousness of the deliberate damage should be foremost in people’s minds.
In due course it will be for the court to decide whether the charges have been brought under appropriate legislation.
No one seriously disputes that breaching a military airbase and damaging aircraft is a serious matter. The figure of £7 million – if accurate – is substantial. That two engines were written off at £2.5 million apiece is no small matter for the taxpayer. And yes, the obvious lapse in base security deserves scrutiny in its own right. But what’s equally clear – and what many seem determined not to see – is the wider political and moral context, and the implications of the government’s response.
It is precisely because this was planned and non-violent that it deserves to be recognised as direct action – a form of civil disobedience aimed at highlighting perceived state complicity in war crimes. Whether one agrees with the method or not, the intent was not terror, violence, or indiscriminate destruction – it was political protest, clearly and deliberately targeted. These were not saboteurs attempting to disable UK defences in wartime. They were protestors drawing attention to the British state's ongoing arms trade with a regime under credible accusation of crimes against humanity.
To respond by labelling this terrorism is a category error – and a dangerous one. Criminal damage? Certainly. A security failing? Without doubt. But terrorism? That term should be reserved for acts intended to cause mass harm or instil fear in the public. Stretching it to include property damage in a protest context undermines both public trust in counter-terror laws and the legitimacy of actual anti-terror operations.
The courts will rightly determine whether the charges brought are legally sound. But the political decision to proscribe Palestine Action, to treat its supporters as de facto terrorists, and to chill public support for its stated aims – that’s what should worry any citizen with a memory of what protest rights are supposed to mean in a democracy.
The public should see the seriousness of the damage – but not in isolation. What they must also see is the danger of using national security law to police thought, sympathy, and dissent. A liberal democracy that fears a pot of paint more than the erosion of civil liberties is already on the wrong side of history.
It is your blog, and you are entitled to the last word. I follow the famous dictum of Lord Asquith and we must “wait and see”.
Post a Comment