Labour peers question Palestine Action ban

Peter Hain opposes the proscription and says Labour peers regret backing the ban as protests and legal questions intensify.

Hain warns government over Palestine Action ban

Peter Hain, a former cabinet minister and Labour peer, said the decision to proscribe Palestine Action is digging the government into a hole and warned that a legal challenge could be a mercy to all sides. He noted that some Labour peers and MPs who opposed the move are now reconsidering as arrests rise under the Terrorism Act and critics say the designation risks equating protest with terrorism. Hain argued that anger is growing over the wording of the crackdown and the way it frames peaceful dissent.

The government defends the move, with Downing Street calling Palestine Action a violent organisation that has caused injuries and criminal damage. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the group is not a non violent organisation and pointed to court restrictions that limit parliamentary debate. Labour backbenchers including Stella Creasy pressed for clearer evidence for proscription, while acknowledging the challenge of balancing security with the right to protest. The issue is expected to resurface when Parliament returns in September and as calls widen to consider extending bans to some far right groups seen as exploiting protests about asylum housing.

The episode reveals a rift inside Labour over how far to go in restricting protest and how to frame security. By tying protest groups to terrorism, the government risks normalising broad powers that may harden public attitudes and undermine civil liberties if used too broadly. A successful legal challenge would test whether the proscription rests on solid legal grounding or on political calculations timed to a perceived threat. The clash also underscores how security messaging can collide with historical traditions of peaceful protest in Britain and raise questions about proportionality and accountability as Parliament returns.

Highlights

The outcome will hinge on how clearly lawmakers separate security concerns from the right to protest.