Liberal Democrat parliamentarians should vote against the proscription of Palestine Action.
Yes, members of that group should take responsibility for illegal actions that they take. The law is already quite draconian – especially with the invocation of the Terrorism Act. However, the organisation should not, as a whole, be made illegal in a liberal society where protest is tolerated. Making Palestine Action supporters open to imprisonment is simply unconscionable in modern Britain (and Northern Ireland).
It’s a fair bet that when the Quakers are against something, the Liberal Democrats should also be against it.
Oliver Robertson from the Quakers has said:
“As Quakers, our faith sometimes leads us to act against unjust laws and actions, and be held accountable for that. There are Quakers who have participated in or supported nonviolent direct action for various causes, as part of living out their faith, but they have always done so with a firm commitment to nonviolence. Proscription interferes with our freedom of religion, as well as the freedom of conscience and the right to assembly that all people have, regardless of their motivation for acting.”
On this issue, whose side do the Liberal Democrats want to be on? That of Nigel Farage or that of the Quakers?
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
GWR's trial of a battery-powered train on the Greenford branch
The 'elevator pitch' for solo consultants
West End street surgeries tonight #dundeewestend
Have we lost the ability to build infrastructure?
Simon R
Steve Trevethan
David Allen
Nonconformistradical
Tristan Ward
43 Comments
On this issue, Nigel Farage.
Thank you for a really relevant article!
P. S. Why is the State involving itself when the war planes concerned are, believe or not, privately owned and controlled?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/06/dystopia-uk-genocidal-raf-squadron-targeted-by-palestine-action-is-owned-by-a-hedge-fund-and-leased-by-the-raf/
As a Quaker, I am happy to agree with my nephew Oliver
I’m not so sure. Destroying a plane worth £25 million and causing £55 million damage is a bit much. And it’s not a one off.
Agreed!
Palestine Action have brought this on themselves. A demonstration with placards is acceptable but this is sabotage.
Russell – they didn’t destroy or any aircraft or cause millions of pounds worth of damage. But even if they had, that isn’t terrorism. Charge them with criminal damage or any number of offences, by all means. But if they are terrorists what does that make the IDF?
@Lyell Yardarms
The definition of terrorism in law in the UK includes “serious damage to property” if done to pressure the government or advance a cause – if the damage ran into millions, that would meet the definition.
Asking whether we should be on the side of Nigel Farage or the Quakers sounds like an invitation to form our beliefs based on who else we want to agree with, rather than on the merits of each case. There are numerous issues on which I (and I’m sure most of us) fundamentally disagree with Nigel Farage, but that doesn’t justify deliberately taking an opposing view on a particular issue just for the sake of disagreeing with him on everything.
On this issue, the Quakers.
Palestine Action are exasperated, angry people who think the time has come for ordinary citizens to show solidarity with the Palestinians, by targeting businesses in the UK which are aiding the Israeli assault on Gaza. International law requires our government to stop the export of weapons to Israel, so it wasn’t going to like being shown up in this way. It seems the penalty for embarrassing the British government is to be branded a terrorist.
I understand the judiciary is going to play along with the government by banning defendants from speaking in court, in case they persuade the jury they were performing a public duty made necessary by the moral vacuum at the heart of the British government.
I’m very uncomfortable with this. What they did was criminal damage, but isn’t what most people think of as “terrorism”. But the Terrorism Act includes “serious damage to property” as one of it’s definitions of terrorism, so the Government will have to tell the courts that spraying paint into the engines is serious damage….
But proscribing Palestine Action could have a chilling effect on future peaceful protest. Once an organisation is proscribed, the Home Secretary can unilaterally decide that a new pro-Palestine organisation is an “alias” of the proscribed one, and so being a member of the new organisation could get you 14 years in jail, even if no damage or harm has been caused.
Nick Baird, the police act independently of the government (I thought one joke would be appropriate at this point in the thread) but I don’t think they would be stupid enough to charge a peaceful marcher with a terrorist crime. If they did, a judge would be unlikely to pass a 14 year sentence.
What should be of concern is that some of the ‘Filton 18’ who are accused of committing criminal damage at Elbit Systems in Bristol will have been imprisoned on remand for a year before their cases are heard.
There was a case in the 1980’s when a campaign group damaged aircraft because the same mode was being used against civilians in East Timor. They were found Not Guilty, but a conscientious defence is no longer allowed. We should campaign for the restoration of this defence.
It could be argued that these vandals have done us a favour by showing us how poor our airfield security is. Is it really that easy to seriously damage our air force? Why is this not regarded as the main issue?
First of all, the vandalism of the plane was a reckless, ignorant and arrogant action. At a time of high tensions with Russia it could very well have endangered NATO security.
Palestine Action has attacked arms companies that have also been supporting Ukraine as well as Israel.
I don’t know if it counts as terrorism but I cannot condone their actions.
@Kevin Hawkins
Re airport security or lack of – I was thinking that too.
@Kevin: If someone broke into your home and burgled it, would you be telling us that the main issue was that the burgler had done you a favour by showing you how easy it was to break in?
During the MPs’ expenses scandal, two protesters walked into Alan Duncan’s garden and dug a stylised pound sign into the lawn and planted it with flowers. Were they terrorists? Criminal damage with a political aim?
“At a time of high tensions with Russia it could very well have endangered NATO security” – please listen to yourself. A hostile state could destroy every British military jet on every runway in Britain and not make the tiniest jot of difference to our security.
I strongly agree with Paul. These young people may have broken a law, and may be open to minor charge(s), but they are not spreading terror or hate. They are standing up for liberal principles in supporting Palestinians in their shocking plight, just like the great many Lib Dems who are marching, protesting and holding vigils all over the country – and attracting new LDs in the process.
Lib Dem MPs please use your vote for freedom and justice tonight.
Suffragettes would have been proscribed by the same rules.
We have laws and that’s the way to punish those who break them.
International laws are also in place and those who break them must also be punished.
Simon R In response to your question to Kevin “If someone broke into your home and burgled it, would you be telling us that the main issue was that the burgler had done you a favour by showing you how easy it was to break in?”
The answer has to be that if you owned say 20 properties and had the same sort of security arrangements in all of them, then the benefit of knowing the weakness would enable you to plan to reduce that weakness. That in turn might be significantly less expensive than the likely cost of a larger co-ordinated set of burglars later. On the other hand it might not be.
The one simple fact we know is that in international relations and defence, there is no simple short answer that destroys any other.
I have little time for Alan Duncan, but Lyell Yardarms really ought to give the full and accurate story about Mr Duncan’s garden being vandalised during the MPs expenses scandal.
The House of Commons Standards Committee did indeed investigate Mr Duncan and found that he had not broken any rules. I doubt if the vandals ever went back to restore the damage, but I would like to think Mr Yardarms might have volunteered to do so if he had been involved.
@ David Raw
But was Alan Duncan’s garden really vandalised or did it get an artistic feature created as part of a one off performance art event?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOMSdH4qhaw&t=3s
I suspect the bigger issue with Palestine Action is they showed up security at Brize Norton. I seem to remember the women at Greenham Common achieved a similar level of shock-horror with their impromptu walk around Greenham’s facilities.
My take is that wherever we set the bar for what constitutes terrorism, we need to apply the bar equally. Palestine Action is damaging the very cause they profess to support, by associating Palestinian support with extremism and with attacking British military assets. You can argue all you like about the strength of their cause but it does not justify what they did. That all said, their actions seem roughly equivalent to Just Stop Oil. I would be keen to hear from the Government why they don’t proscribe JSO on a similar basis, or is it that attacking military targets (even if only with paint) is different to attacking priceless works of art or tennis tournaments?
@David Raw
“Alan Duncan… apologised for gardening claims and repaid £4,000.”
My point still stands. Criminal damage with a political purpose, whilst doubtless deplorable, is not terrorism.
@Simon R
The short answer to your question is ‘No’. I was not seriously suggesting that these vandals have done us a favour – I was being sarcastic. However, I do think that the lack of security is a serious concern.
The debate is currently ongoing, but the government so far seems unable to answer the argument that acts of criminal damage are already covered by laws designed to deter or prevent them, and to punish perpetrators – that’s why the phrase used to describe them includes the word ‘criminal’. The suggestion that Palestine Action is trying to ‘terrorise’ the organisation they oppose (HM Government, for its failure to uphold international law and ban arms exports to Israel) might be accurate if the government is genuinely afraid, but the real question is why our government hasn’t banned the sale of British-made military equipment being used to terrorise the Palestinian people, and in many cases, actually kill them.
If a right wing group had called itself “Aid-Action” and done the same things to aid planes and damaging aid companies warehouses would people oppose proscription of “Aid-Action”?
I find it deeply depressing that for some people the takeaway is that it was the fault of the owners for not having adequate security.
@Russell
“I find it deeply depressing that for some people the takeaway is that it was the fault of the owners for not having adequate security”
Should I assume you think it was acceptable that these people were able to get through the airport fence, do the considerable damage they did and get back out again without being stopped?
Where would you draw the line between protest and terrorism?
From a legal point of view the question to ask is whether their campaign of direct action constitutes terrorism. The answer is simple; no. Existing laws are draconian enough, but no laws are draconion enough to stop people from breaking them.
The Uk Terrorism Act 2000 is already more restrictive than the unanimously agreed 2004 UN resolution 1566 as described in UNHRC report https://www.ohchr.org/en/terrorism which states: In the absence of an internationally agreed definition of acts of terrorism, the High Commissioner for Human Rights calls upon States to be guided by the key elements of acts of terrorism provided in Security Council resolution 1566 (2004) and the model definition developed by the Special Rapporteur As a minimum,Terrorism involves the intimidation or coercion of populations or governments through the threat or perpetration of violence, causing death, serious injury or the taking of hostages. P A did not cause death or injury and is liable for the criminal damage. I am shocked by the mass abstentions by Lib Dem MPs who failed to uphold the Lib Dem core belief in human rights.
In effect no LIb Dem MP voted against (6 voted in both lobbies – the traditional way of formally registering an abstention).
Lisa Smart made some sensible observations (particularly about on organisiation previously having been proscribed just on the basis of crimes against property) but that wasn’t followed up with a tangible vote.
All in all this is a sensible position and strategy for a party building itself around winning the votes of moderate right-centrist voters in tory-facing seats in the south of England. And it again reflects how well organised and co-ordinated the party generally is being about its statements and votes to reinforce that strategy.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-07-02/debates/6C9338E8-E516-494A-81A2-B3FEF549DD48/PreventionAndSuppressionOfTerrorism
@Russell – RAF Brize Norton is portrayed as a highly secure military base ie. you can not accidentally walk on to these bases and they have active on-site security personnel. The fact in both instances they were so easily entered by un-authorised people who were permitted to both be on base for an extended period of time and gain unhindered access to critical military assets, should be concerning you.
Just a correction to your other post, the damage was estimated at £7M. My understanding from other sources it seems the planes were out of action for lest than 48 hours. Yes the potential was there for greater damage, but that I suggest is the grey line between protest and terrorism.
I am truly appalled that the Liberal Democrats supported the proscription of Palestine Action for peacefully protesting against the UK’s ongoing support of Israel’s ongoing war crimes in Gaza and other parts of the region. To equate the actions of Palestine Action (i.e. trespass and vandalism) to the slaughter of innocent civilians carried out by genuine terrorist groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda and the IRA is beyond ridiculous.
We are sleepwalking into a police state and the Liberal Democrates seem to be helping us on our way. We are already more likely to be arrested for criticising Israel or slowing doen the traffic than for shoplifting or sexual assault.
Wearing a tie, belt, scarf or show laces on a demonstration is a crime if a police officer thinks they might be used for ‘locking on’, hardcore criminals are freed from prison as ‘political prisoners’ are incarcerated and peaceful Just Stop Oil protesters received much harsher sentences than the Southport rioters. So why, I ask myself, would anyone bother to protest peacefully. .
As a criminal defence lawyer of over 30 yrs standing, mainly now working in the Crown Courts I am totally dismayed about this step. We are indeed walking in to a police state …Some of the comments here would indeed do Farage and Reform proud. I do not condone criminal damage but this is not I repeat not “terrorism” ….
I joined the Liberal Democrats under the understanding that they supported liberal values in politics. The arrests today (5th July) in Parliament Square were an attack on those liberal values. If the Liberal Democrats do not clearly oppose those arrests, I will end my membership of the party and my work for it immediately.
Who cares if they destroyed warplanes? Warplanes are being used to commit a genocide. History is littered with examples of people prioritizing rule of law over morality, to the detriment of humanity
Damaging the aircraft was stupid, irresponsible and a major step too far. However the arrests yesterday also seem to match the description as well. It places the Courts in an almost impossible situation where whatever they do will be a lose lose situation. The legislation has not been thought through, like so much that has come from this government.
I feel exactly the same as Colin Birch that unless some opposition is forthcoming my 30 year support is likely to cease.
I notice from the BBC report of their appeal: ‘Mr Justice Chamberlain said an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and “preceded” the incident at RAF Brize Norton.’