Palestine Action: Court hears Starmer used proscription to avoid human rights law

The barrister representing Palestine Action told the Court of Appeal today that the Starmer government didn’t want to use other laws against activists because human rights would get in the way.

Home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is appealing against the High Court’s finding that the regime’s ban on the protest group Palestine Action is unlawful.

The case is addressing Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protect rights of free speech and protest.

Barrister Owen Greenhall said the government decided to use the Terrorism Act to impose the proscription because other measures would come with procedural obligations under the Human Rights Act.

Only two forms of behavioural orders are cited [in government discussions], Criminal Behaviour Orders and Serious Crime Prevention Orders…the objection taken to the use of those orders is that it would require the court to consider Article 10 and 11 rights before imposing such orders…but clearly proscription is a far greater infringement of Article 10 and 11 rights.

Yesterday, the government’s barrister told the court that proscription does not prevent people showing support for Palestine Action. This is untrue. The Terrorism Act 2000 makes support for a proscribed organisation a criminal offence with sentences of up to 14 years.

Some 3,300 people have been arrested to-date for showing support for Palestine Action, mostly older and disabled people. The Met Police continue to arrest more.

A government run by a supposed ‘human rights lawyer’ drips with contempt for those rights when they belong to opponents of Israel’s genocide, apartheid, wars of aggression and crimes against humanity.

Featured image via the Canary