Palestine Action lawyers have said the group’s challenge to the government ban could be compared to the suffragettes.
On the first day of a three-day judicial review at the High Court, lawyers for the group’s co-founder Huda Ammori said the Votes for Women movement would have faced the same restrictions if today’s laws had been in place more than 100 years ago.
Palestine Action was listed as a banned terrorist organization after causing millions of pounds of damage to defense companies.
The then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper banned the group following an internal Home Office security assessment of its activity.
Raza Hussain KC, representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the ban was unprecedented.
About 200 people protested peacefully outside during the opening of the challenge – many of them silently holding signs that read, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine action.”
After this, many sign holders were arrested by the police. Since the ban, more than 2,100 people have been arrested across the country for participating in similar protests.
In court, Mr Hussain Casey told a panel of three senior judges that, in the entire history of Home Secretaries using extraordinary powers to ban a group under terrorism legislation, no minister had ever banned a group for being a “direct action” organisation.
He said that before Palestine Action was banned, it was followed by millions of people on social media.
Most of its “actioners” – that is, people who took part in protests and alleged vandalism at defense firms and related companies – were arrested or charged with standard offenses such as criminal damage.
Ministers say a series of events organized by the group went beyond minor vandalism, causing millions of pounds of damage, making the decision to ban the group justified.
Mr. Hussein Casey said, “Palestine Action is the first direct action civil disobedience organization that never advocates violence without declaring it terroristic.”
“Ms. Huda Ammori has explained that she was inspired by the long tradition of action in this country, from suffragettes to anti-apartheid activists to Iraq War activists.
“Suffragists took direct action, damaging property and even attempting arson at Westminster Abbey.”
Their written submission to the court said: “If the Terrorism Act 2000 regime had been in place at the end of the 20th century, the franchise would have been banned.”
Ms Ammori’s lawyers argue that the ban is unlawful because it disproportionately interferes with her rights to freedom of expression and assembly – and that the then Home Secretary failed to consider that impact.
They also argue that Cooper should have consulted the group before imposing the ban and that she failed to take into account her own policy that such a decision should be proportionate.
Another lawyer for Ms. Ammori, Owen Greenhall, argued that the effect of the ban was so broad that it prevented legitimate protest outside a major defense firm, which has been targeted by the group since its founding.
Anyone who wishes to take part in such disruptive protests, as they routinely did before the ban, will risk being labeled a member of Palestine Action.
The case will continue on Thursday, when the government lawyers will respond.
In their written submissions to the court, made public on Wednesday, they argued that ministers acted legally in identifying incidents they believed justified sanctions under terrorism law – and that they did not need to take into account that much of the Palestine Action activity fell short of that test.
The case returns to court next Tuesday for final submissions, including a secret “closed” hearing for national security reasons.
<a href