Ban on Palestine Action is repugnant and should be lifted, high court told

"Raza Husain KC told the court in London on Wednesday: There are reasons of profound importance as to why, in the 32 executive orders that have been made adding organisations to proscribed lists, no direct action civil disobedience organisation appears. Such proscription is repugnant to the tradition of the common law and contrary to the European convention on human rights."

"Husain told the court: The decision to proscribe PA is an unprecedented and disproportionate interference with articles 9, 10 and 11 [freedom of thought, expression and protest]. D [the defendant] has imposed extreme measures on a protest group (which enjoyed widespread popularity among the British public) seeking to expose, protest and prevent serious violations of international law by Israel, and the complicity of the UK government and companies in"

"The report concluded that Palestine Action was a risk to UK businesses and legitimate enterprises nationwide and engaged as a whole in non-violent direct action. Another report from the centre in December last year said incidents in which violence had been used were not the norm for PA (Palestine Action) action, and any harm or injuries historically are assessed to be the result of unintentional or misjudged action through trying to evade capture."

A legal challenge contests the proscription of Palestine Action as an unprecedented and disproportionate interference with freedoms of thought, expression and protest. Legal counsel argues that direct-action civil disobedience groups have not previously been added to proscribed lists and that such proscription is repugnant to common law and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The home secretary asserted that some activities crossed the terrorism threshold, a claim described as limited and disputed. Police reports described Palestine Action as primarily engaged in non-violent direct action, noting that violent incidents were not the norm and harms were often unintentional when evading capture.

Read at www.theguardian.com