- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 11,375
- 0
- 6
The UK Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in Huda Ammori’s appeal challenging the government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Ammori’s case is that Palestine Action was a conscientious protest group aiming to disrupt the supply of weapons to Israel from the UK at a time when the ICJ issued provisional measures concerning the rights of Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention. Her lawyer emphasized that the group never advocated for violence against a person, and compared the group’s actions with the more violent means of the suffragette movement and other movements that did not result in a terrorist designation. The designation was framed as an unjustified interference with fundamental freedoms of expression and association.
Ammori relied on ICJ provisional measures and UN human-rights reports, arguing that the group’s actions targeted businesses allegedly facilitating violations of international law, including obligations arising under the Rome Statute and the Genocide Convention.
In June 2025, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Terrorism Act 2000, proscribed the protest group Palestine Action. The government announced the decision to Parliament on 23 June 2025, and the implementing order entered into force on 5 July 2025 following approval by both Houses of Parliament.
The Secretary maintained that the proscription was based on advice from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and other experts, and that she followed the long-standing Proscription Policy, and properly balanced free expression and association rights against national-security concerns and the interests of affected companies. The government detailed the serious property damage and argued that the proscription did not prevent lawful demonstrations.
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, an organization is “concerned in terrorism” if it commits, participates in, prepares for, promotes, encourages, or is otherwise concerned in, acts of terrorism. The definition of “terrorism” includes serious damage to property carried out for a political or ideological purpose. The proscription relied in part on incidents involving property damage at defense facilities in Glasgow, Kent, and Bristol. The government said during argument that the attack on the Israeli contractor Elbit, in Bristol, resulted in £1 million in damages.
The Divisional Court found it unlawful on two grounds: that the Home Secretary’s reasoning was inconsistent with her Proscription Policy, and that proscription was a disproportionate interference with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, finding the policy was correctly applied and that the interference with Convention rights was proportionate, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted permission to appeal on the proportionality issue.
Authorities have made more than 4,000 arrests and brought more than 480 charges related to the proscription. The Jewish Bloc, a coalition of Jewish groups campaigning for Palestinian rights, supports the appellant, alongside Amnesty International UK and Liberty, English PEN and PEN International, and a UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The Jewish Leadership Council and Community Security Trust intervened for the Secretary of State.
The post UK Supreme Court hears challenge to Palestine Action terrorist designation appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
Ammori’s case is that Palestine Action was a conscientious protest group aiming to disrupt the supply of weapons to Israel from the UK at a time when the ICJ issued provisional measures concerning the rights of Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention. Her lawyer emphasized that the group never advocated for violence against a person, and compared the group’s actions with the more violent means of the suffragette movement and other movements that did not result in a terrorist designation. The designation was framed as an unjustified interference with fundamental freedoms of expression and association.
Ammori relied on ICJ provisional measures and UN human-rights reports, arguing that the group’s actions targeted businesses allegedly facilitating violations of international law, including obligations arising under the Rome Statute and the Genocide Convention.
In June 2025, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Terrorism Act 2000, proscribed the protest group Palestine Action. The government announced the decision to Parliament on 23 June 2025, and the implementing order entered into force on 5 July 2025 following approval by both Houses of Parliament.
The Secretary maintained that the proscription was based on advice from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and other experts, and that she followed the long-standing Proscription Policy, and properly balanced free expression and association rights against national-security concerns and the interests of affected companies. The government detailed the serious property damage and argued that the proscription did not prevent lawful demonstrations.
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, an organization is “concerned in terrorism” if it commits, participates in, prepares for, promotes, encourages, or is otherwise concerned in, acts of terrorism. The definition of “terrorism” includes serious damage to property carried out for a political or ideological purpose. The proscription relied in part on incidents involving property damage at defense facilities in Glasgow, Kent, and Bristol. The government said during argument that the attack on the Israeli contractor Elbit, in Bristol, resulted in £1 million in damages.
The Divisional Court found it unlawful on two grounds: that the Home Secretary’s reasoning was inconsistent with her Proscription Policy, and that proscription was a disproportionate interference with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, finding the policy was correctly applied and that the interference with Convention rights was proportionate, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted permission to appeal on the proportionality issue.
Authorities have made more than 4,000 arrests and brought more than 480 charges related to the proscription. The Jewish Bloc, a coalition of Jewish groups campaigning for Palestinian rights, supports the appellant, alongside Amnesty International UK and Liberty, English PEN and PEN International, and a UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The Jewish Leadership Council and Community Security Trust intervened for the Secretary of State.
The post UK Supreme Court hears challenge to Palestine Action terrorist designation appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.