The government has left itself almost powerless against Palestine Action

Editorial: While it was always absurd for the home secretary to categorise the direct action group as a terrorist organisation – placing it in the same bracket as Isis and the Provisional IRA – there are better ways for its activists to win the argument than by using violence

Whatever might be said about the merits of the government’s attempt to outlaw Palestine Action, it has proved to be a humiliating failure in every respect.

The High Court ruling that the proscription of the group as a “terrorist” organisation is “disproportionate” and in contravention of human rights legislation has left ministers in the worst of all worlds. The government is accused of tyranny, but in fact is also now prospectively unable to control an organisation that has resorted to violent acts, at least against property, and which Jewish communities have found deeply threatening.

Given that two juries have refused to convict Palestine Action activists in high-profile cases where the evidence of wrongdoing has been overwhelming and unchallenged, the situation is clearly a mess.

The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, says she is “disappointed” by the judges’ decision, but she should not be surprised. She will appeal against the decision, so the ban on Palestine Action remains in place for the time being – but it feels like a dead letter.

Indeed, the Metropolitan Police refused to take the latest bait offered outside the High Court by protesters with placards saying they support Palestine Action. Officers declined to arrest them for the benefit of the television cameras. The police pointed to the “unusual” situation created by the High Court ruling; they are correct that it is unusual, but this is not a convincing reason for failing to uphold the law.

When Ms Mahmood’s predecessor, Yvette Cooper, stood up in the Commons last June to make the case for proscription, she had some reasonable arguments. She was right to say that Jewish communities found some Palestine Action activities “intimidatory and unacceptable”. The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a warning that “Palestine Action has repeatedly targeted buildings hosting Jewish communal institutions, Jewish-owned businesses, or sites associated with Israel, in ways that cause fear and disruption far beyond the immediate protest sites”.

We live in a time when legitimate concerns about the behaviour of the Israeli armed forces in Gaza have too easily slid into blaming British Jews for such actions – a classic antisemitic trope, whether conscious or otherwise.

After the Manchester synagogue attack, the Bondi Beach shootings, and other murderous assaults on Jews who have nothing to do with the Netanyahu government, all those who protest the suffering of the Palestinian people have to be especially clear about the peaceful nature and intent of their cause. Those who are pro-Palestine, however that is defined, must never allow their movement to be overtaken or hijacked by anti-Jewish hate.

Sadly, despite Ms Cooper’s honourable intentions, the decision to proscribe Palestinian Action has done nothing to ameliorate this danger.

There is no reason, either, for the government – or the British people as a whole – to accept the destruction of vital and valuable defence equipment as an exercise in freedom of expression. The definition of “direct action” does not include committing vandalism in the pursuit of a political cause.

The Home Office’s Palestine Action ban has been ruled unlawful (AP)

As Ms Cooper pointed out, Palestine Action does not have the right to attack “key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine, Nato, Five Eyes allies and UK defence”. It is not just property that gets hurt. Last year, a Palestine Action activist was allegedly responsible for breaking a police officer’s spine with a sledgehammer during a raid on premises belonging to an Israel-based defence company. (The jury failed to reach a verdict in that case, and a retrial is pending.)

We are still a democracy, with the ancient right to protest protected by common law, by the human rights convention, and by the safeguard against bad law guaranteed by a jury. There are better ways for Palestine Action to win its arguments than by using violence, as was seen in the general election, when many so-called Gaza independents were elected to the House of Commons. If Palestine Action goes beyond peaceful, noisy protest and resorts to intimidation and violence, then its members should be restrained, as with any other group, through proportionate action by the authorities.

The mistake made by Ms Cooper and the government was to choose the wrong measure to keep the peace so far as Palestine Action is concerned. Despite the violence sometimes deployed, it was always absurd to categorise Palestine Action as a “terrorist” organisation, bracketing it with, say, Isis or the Provisional IRA. It resulted in retired people and wheelchair users, who were obviously not terrorists in any accepted sense of the word, being manhandled by the police for holding up a piece of cardboard with words on it. The law was dragged into farce and disrepute when confronted with a T-shirt proclaiming loyalty to “Plasticine Action”.

There are existing laws and powers that can, and are, used in the case of demonstrations and direct action, including incitement to racial or religious hatred, disorder, criminal damage and grievous bodily harm. If Palestine Action is a more sinister organisation than it appears – as ministers have claimed it to be – but is still not clearly a terrorist one, then a new law should be framed accordingly, and be justified to parliament and the people.

At the moment, the government has left itself practically powerless to deal with Palestine Action, while simultaneously infringing on the common right to protest. Even if the ban is upheld on appeal, juries may still choose to ignore it, and other laws for that matter, and free Palestine Action protesters. On behalf of her government, Ms Mahmood will need to think again about what to put in place of this unenforceable ban.