Britain’s terrorism laws have garnered wide criticism for the first time in decades. Weekly articles are published showing British doctors, teachers and pensioners openly defying terrorism laws by protesting the government’s decision to proscribe the direct-action group Palestine Action. As the genocide of the Palestinian people has continually escalated, so too has the authoritarian policing of those who protest it, including the widespread use of terrorism powers.

From well-established activists like Majid Freeman, known for his humanitarian aid work in Palestine and Syria, who is facing 14 years in prison for sharing videos of Palestinian resistance, to university students like Sarah from the SOAS2, who faces prison for a speech affirming the Palestinians’ right to armed resistance. Counter terrorism laws are interwoven with the pervasive and draconian policing of free speech and protest for the Palestinian cause.

This apparent shift of the state towards criminalising protest by utilising terrorism powers is often framed as a ‘misuse’ of these laws. Terrorism laws began as emergency powers used against the Irish who were resisting British occupation, and they were meant to be subject to review and were viewed as exceptional. However, following the events of 9/11 and the ensuing global war on terror, terrorism laws quickly became permanent, and states have continued to justify the unabating expansion of their powers and repressive tools under the guise of national security. From policies like Prevent, policing school children’s thoughts about religion, to glorification laws and policing free speech so that it becomes illegal to express an opinion about any group banned under these same laws.

Take the oppressive power known as Schedule 7, for example. Used as a mass surveillance tool, people are stopped at the border for up to 6 hours without suspicion and forced to provide their passwords to devices, leaving them with no right to privacy. This power has now expanded to be used against migrants for up to 5 days at detention centres.

Over the last two decades, these laws have been used almost exclusively against Muslims who have been incessantly treated as the suspect community. Over a million Muslims have been stopped under Schedule 7 since its inception. But the government has routinely neglected to publish the stats on those who are captured relating to religion. In the last year, 76% of those stopped were from an ethnic minority, and in 2014, a study conducted by Cambridge University monitored the religion of those stopped at one particular airport and found that 88% of them were Muslim.

The purported reason for terrorism laws is to identify “threats” and to keep the public safe. For the last few years, the threat level to the UK has long been categorised as significant, meaning an ‘attack’ is still considered likely despite the raft of terrorism powers in place to allegedly ‘protect’ us.

Will the terrorism threat level now increase since the police are identifying and arresting hundreds of British pensioners, including the 532 individuals who were arrested on 9 August in Parliament Square, whom they view as committing acts of terrorism?

By acts of terrorism, of course, I refer to the act of silently holding a sign that reads “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” There have been three times more arrests under terrorism legislation this past month than all of last year. These laws do not make us safer as they claim to, but in fact enable unchecked policing, mass surveillance, and criminalisation of dissent. 

Activists were being criminalised under terrorism powers well before Yvette Cooper decided to proscribe Palestine Action. Last August, six activists took action at an Israeli weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, where they destroyed quadcopters and weapons intended for use in Gaza. Elbit Systems supplies 75% of all the weapons used by the IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces), and markets its weapons as ‘battle-tested’ on Palestinians. These activists were arrested under counter terrorism powers and held incommunicado for over a week before being charged with non-terror offences. 

Since then, 18 other activists have also been arrested in relation to the action following violent police raids, including some at gunpoint and extended detention in police custody. All 24, known as the Filton24, have been held in prison since their arrests and denied bail due to an alleged ‘terrorist connection’- which will only apply if they are found guilty, where the judge will be able to increase their prison sentence. The impact of a terrorism sentence does not end there. Upon release, a sentence will impact every facet of their lives, from travel to employment to family building. Some of the Filton24 will remain in limbo – in prison for up to two years before their trial.

Those accused of taking action to stop a genocide are in prison and being treated like terrorists, having their rights stripped from them, whilst those who actively participate in the genocide, including British citizens serving in the IOF and Ministers who endorse the starving of Palestinian children, are left untouched.

I had the privilege of visiting some of the Filton24 who are at HMP Bronzefield, a women’s prison in the UK. Whilst they are separated from families, spending milestones like birthdays, Eid and Ramadan incarcerated without trial, they remain resilient and focused on Palestine, what’s happening in the movement and how they can do more. These individuals are viewed and treated as terrorists by the state; they have their mail withheld from them based on spurious “national security” grounds and are repeatedly denied bail. They are treated this way, not because they’re alleged to have committed criminal damage at a weapons manufacturer, but merely because the state declares them “terrorists.” 

Britain’s definition of terrorism is extremely broad and has faced international criticism for this since its inception. It has permitted them to detain people at the border for up to six hours without suspicion. It has enabled them to criminalise speech and the sharing of articles as terrorism. It has facilitated them in raiding and charging journalists as they expose the crimes of the state, and it has allowed them to justify the use of terrorism powers against protesters and those taking direct action. The law is not being misapplied; it is being applied exactly as it was intended, and thus, these laws should be abolished in their entirety. 

Once terrorism laws are invoked, previously existing rights and liberties are immediately suspended. This removes the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, the right to see all the evidence that is held against you, the right to a fair trial uninfluenced by propaganda: a total withdrawal of due process. It was this withdrawal that permitted the torture of thousands of innocent men across Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Despite decades of campaigning against such treatment, Guantanamo Bay remains open, and the impact of terrorism legislation has woven its way into every facet of life and remains with the individual and their community far beyond the conclusion of the ordeal. Even for those who have been released from Guantanamo without charge, it is a life sentence with no reprieve.

The proscription of Palestine Action has placed a much-needed spotlight on our terrorism laws by raising questions about every decision taken by the government regarding terrorism. It is clearer now that terror laws are political in nature, and as the terrain of those in power shifts, so does the application of the law. Nelson Mandela is a key example of how a shift in government interests results in a marked change in the categorisation of terrorism. He was known and imprisoned as a terrorist for resisting apartheid, until the regime was toppled, when he then became a global hero even amongst the allies of those who imprisoned him. Terrorism legislation has historically been used as a political tool to manipulate the masses and undermine resistance; it continues to be used as such today.

The use of these laws against activists has exposed not only Britain’s role in protecting the zionist entity, but their ridiculous use against protesters has undermined the very basis of these laws to begin with.