Ban on Palestine Action as ‘terrorists' is shameful

I am a former chief constable, and once attempted to become a Labour police and crime commissioner. I'm not therefore someone easily categorised as a supporter of terrorism or criminal activity. The decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group is beyond satire (Report, 20 June). I suspect that embarrassment over hilarious security failures at an RAF base may be clouding judgment and good sense.
Proscribing a group for peaceful protest – albeit illegal – is a disgrace. It is nearly as disgraceful as the continued UK support for the apartheid, ethnic-cleansing Israeli state. If the home secretary is so keen to proscribe an organisation, why not proscribe the terror group known as the Israel Defense Forces? They kill innocent people daily, and yet my voted-for government does absolutely nothing.
Words mean nothing. Israel's leadership ignores them, yet our government persists in arming it. The proposal to proscribe Palestine Action is undemocratic and, frankly, shameful. It is an abuse of an important law – one here being used to suppress support for Palestinians. The home secretary appears to have left reason behind.Meredydd Hughes Bradwell, Derbyshire
The plan to proscribe Palestine Action represents a failure of this government to engage in meaningful discussion with all those who deplore Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and our government's support of those actions. The protest group has made it clear that their reason for using spray paint on two planes was to draw public attention towards RAF logistical support for Israeli actions.
That logistical support has taken many forms, and the public is only aware of some. At the same time, the government has often condemned Israel's genocidal policies. It should not be surprised when its support for Israel leads to alarming reactions. I recently joined a large, friendly and peaceful march in London in support of the Palestinian cause. I dearly hope the home secretary will consider the British history of tolerance of protest in her future policies.Simon BarberUttoxeter, Staffordshire
The government responds to a few people spraying paint and breaking windows by declaring them 'terrorists'. If that is terrorism, then the word loses all meaning. Banning them – and their supporters – could be justified if they have carried out, or advocate, a campaign of murder and/or bodily harm. But unless the government can provide evidence of the latter, then proscribing a group that is protesting against a war is ludicrous, and sets a very dangerous precedent.
Are the anti-frackers terrorists? Hunt saboteurs? Even last year's rioters weren't called terrorists, yet they caused mayhem in many towns and cities. No one is safe if proscription becomes the norm.Peter Loschi Chadderton, Greater Manchester
So now you're a terrorist if you protest against the government supporting genocidal acts on innocent people? A small act of vandalism is hardly blowing people up, but this government is supporting murderous behaviour in Gaza in all our names, no matter how many times we take to the streets or write to our MPs. The suffragettes would have been branded terrorists if we used this criterion. I'm not a member of Palestine Action, but they sound just like my kind of people. Mary Gildea Charlton, London
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

15 minutes ago

• Times

Leaving oil and gas in the ground was always a pipe dream

Just call me Mystic Mac. As I forecast in this space earlier this month, the UK has finally opened the door to the development of the Rosebank oilfield off Shetland and the Jackdaw gas field off Aberdeen. Ed Miliband, the net zero secretary, famously said that drilling in these two modest reserves would constitute 'climate vandalism'. Well, it looks like he will shortly have to get his spray paint out and daub 'Just Start Oil' on the door of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. To be honest, it didn't take supernatural foresight to predict that these totemic fields would ultimately get the go-ahead. They were given licences by the last government. Production was halted only by a bizarre judgment by the Court of Session in Edinburgh. In January Lord Ericht ruled in favour of the climate activists, Uplift and Greenpeace, who argued that the UK government hadn't carried out a full environmental impact assessment of the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels downstream. It had merely provided an assessment of the carbon dioxide from the process of extracting it and piping it ashore. New methods of extraction can and are producing significant reductions in producer emissions. But the UK government had not formally included an assessment of the downstream emissions since it was deemed self-evident that burning hydrocarbons produces greenhouse gases. What did the court expect? That it would be used to oil bicycle chains and fill balloons? Shell says that Jackdaw alone would produce enough gas to heat 1.4 million households. The environmental and health impact on those households of withdrawing their main source of heating was not, of course, considered in this pettifogging ruling — because that would have required an ounce of common sense. Nor did the court recognise that the gas, which would have to be imported to fuel those domestic boilers if Jackdaw were stoppered, might produce more emissions than using our domestic supply. Yet it should be patently obvious that shipping liquefied natural gas 3,000 miles from America by tanker is more profligate in emissions than using what's produced by extraction from our backyard. The court was tacitly endorsing the perverse logic of the Scottish government and lobbyists such as Greenpeace that, in some morally inexplicable way, imported oil and gas is good while ours is bad. But Sir Keir Starmer was never going to start shutting down an industry that generates about £25 billion a year, according to Offshore Energy UK, and supports around 100,000 jobs. Pointlessly sacrificing these new fields would only have indicated to the few companies still operating in the region that the government is hell bent on closing down the North Sea prematurely. The new rules announced last week by Michael Shanks, the energy minister, will allow further development of the Cambo and Clair fields, expansion of which had also been placed on hold following the January court ruling. This whole episode served only to showcase the absurdity of what is being called the managerial 'lanyard class's' thinking about energy. The Treasury is not stupid and was never going to endorse an exercise in performative self-harm. Nor was No 10. 'Keeping it in the ground', as Patrick Harvie used to advocate, was not what Labour meant by a rational and measured transition to renewable energy. The UK depends on oil and gas for 75 per cent of its energy usage. So the UK government has rejigged the approval process to include a statement of the bleedin' obvious — viz, that burning oil and gas produces emissions. Industry sources believe, rightly, that by submitting this new and more politically correct prospectus, they will be able to go ahead. That is, if firms like Equinor haven't given up in disgust. They're already being hit by a 78 per cent profits tax on North Sea oil, which makes you wonder why they bother. It's not as if the oil price is exactly soaring right now, despite the nasty business in the Strait of Hormuz. Companies such as Harbour Energy have given up and pulled out. Norwegian-owned Equinor, in Rosebank, is hanging on, presumably in the hope that it will be well placed to bid for future wind farm development. It installed the first commercially viable floating wind farm, Hywind, off Peterhead. All of which underlines the lamentable state of our whole approach to energy. Oil companies, demonised by the environmental lobby, happen to possess the very skills and technology which will be needed if and when the green energy bonanza finally materialises. Greenpeace seems to think the wind energy in the North Sea can be harnessed by Native American dream-catchers and transmitted into people's homes by daisy chains. In fact it requires heavy-duty platforms, implanted in turbulent waters, to support wind turbines the size of the Eiffel Tower — and also the laying of undersea cables to get it to the grid (if it can be upgraded in time). This is not very different, technologically, from what fossil fuel companies have been doing for the past 50 years. Rosebank and Jackdaw are not going to solve the UK's strategic energy deficit. They are rather modest operations in a North Sea field that is in steep and irrevocable decline. The glory days are over. But we still need whatever they can provide, if only to ensure a measure of energy security and help reduce costly imports. One of the more specious arguments currently deployed by opponents of Rosebank and Jackdaw is that their hydrocarbons will be exported and are therefore of no use here. Not so: gas goes directly to the UK. Oil is mostly exported to Rotterdam for refining, but it comes back as petrol and other products. It isn't refined here because we've closed nearly all our own refineries, such as Grangemouth, because of our perverse belief that it is morally preferable to import hydrocarbons. Abandoning the North Sea won't bring forward net zero by a single day. It will merely increase our dependency on authoritarian governments in the Middle East, make energy bills even more unaffordable, and deprive the UK of billions in oil revenues to spend on the NHS. Predictably, the Scottish government has not responded to the energy U-turn. The SNP is still under the sway of environmental cretinism. No wonder Fergus Ewing, a voice of energy sanity, has decided to walk. Perhaps Ed Miliband may be following him in the not-too-distant future.

Telegraph

35 minutes ago

• Telegraph

‘Enjoy the fireworks': Cautious optimism on the streets of Tel Aviv

Alerts blared out on phones across Israel at 7.30am on Sunday and, just a minute or so after the blast doors were pulled tight, deep percussive thuds reverberated through the Tel Aviv bomb shelter. It was one of the largest salvos of recent days, with at least 40 ballistic missiles fired at the Jewish state from Iran. All across the country, people were hunkering down, most unaware of the overnight US strikes on Fordow and Iran's other nuclear facilities. Sleep has been hard enough for most Israelis over the last week, with phones often inundated with missile alerts and news notifications in the dead of night. The 15 to 20 people in the Tel Aviv hotel shelter sucked in a collective breath with the thud of the impacts but quickly turned to their phones to peruse reports on the night's action. One by one, smiles spread across sleepy faces with the knowledge that the US had joined Israel in its fight against Iran. This is a country where people have long believed that 'strength' is all. 'For me, the biggest message this sends is that no one f---s with us,' a young South African-born Israeli told me after the blast doors opened. Seven kilometres to the north, a ballistic missile had slammed into the densely compacted residential neighbourhood of Ramat Aviv. Others caused devastation in Ness Ziona, south of Tel Aviv, and the northern city of Haifa. There were no deaths, but more than 100 people were reported injured. The shockwave at the Tel Aviv housing estate sheared off the outside wall off an old but smart-looking concrete apartment block and destroyed multiple neighbouring houses. That block alone contained 34 apartments and an adjacent high-rise had its windows blown out from top to bottom on the blast-facing side, making hundreds homeless. It is thought that at least 20 were injured there. A senior police officer said at the scene that tragedy was averted because everyone got to their safe rooms. The contents of the apartments – clothes, kitchen implements, children's toys – were strewn across the rubble, as hundreds of residents evacuated with what belongings they could save. They join nearly 9,000 Israeli civilians who are now homeless because of the missile strikes, according to the Israel Defense Forces. With the US strike and Iran's retaliation came new emergency lockdown orders from the government, which once again closed most shops and businesses. Nevertheless, the mood on the streets of the city was upbeat, if muted. People nodded knowingly as Telegraph reporters made their way to the blast scene, with several offering fist bumps. 'It's good, but I'm not sure', said one woman of the US strikes. 'Every day, it's a new adventure here. You don't know what comes next. We just want to live.' At a local Mizrahi-run cafe, the owner offered your correspondents a complimentary shot of arrack. 'Congratulations', he said. 'Enjoy the fireworks'. Excitement – good and bad – comes in quick succession in Israel, and no one pretends to know how things will pan out. Over the past week, there had been real anxiety that Donald Trump would decide against military action and leave Israel hanging. Now the mood has lifted, but the country remains under attack. Eldad Shavit, a former head of Mossad's research division, warned on Sunday that Iran was 'ideologically driven' and no one should expect it to give up. It could continue firing missiles at Israel for a 'month or more' based on estimates of its remaining stocks and there was some tentative evidence to suggest it was firing new missiles that were better at evading Israel's celebrated defence systems. Terrorism could also not be ruled out through its proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah, which were badly damaged but not entirely degraded, she said. The war is also costing Israel economically and politically. The government is coming under mounting pressure over the provision of bomb shelters and temporary accommodation for the 9,000 Israelis whose homes have been destroyed in the past week. Although most of the missiles and drones targeted at Israel have been intercepted, many have got through, causing considerable damage and spreading anxiety and fear. At least 24 Israelis have been killed in the attacks and the number of wounded now exceeds 900, with thousands of homes destroyed and their occupants displaced. 'After the first deaths, everything changed,' the South African-born Israeli told The Telegraph. 'People saw what a ballistic missile really means. The blast is enormous. From then, everyone is trying to go to a shelter, but there are not enough.' Some 57 per cent of Israel's homes do not have a 'mamad' or safe room as of last year, according to the Israeli Builders Association. And about a quarter of Israelis do not have access to any hardened shelter. The shortage – concentrated in poorer areas often dominated by Arab Israelis or new immigrant communities – is leading to overcrowding and growing discontent. Stories documenting the problem have become a mainstay of local media. Video footage and pictures shared with The Telegraph show a shelter in a down-at-heel district of Tel Aviv so crowded that its blast door could not be closed during an air raid alert on Thursday. Dozens of other people were left standing outside the entrance to the shelter without access to any hardened protection, the person who provided the images said. In response to mounting pressure, the Israeli government approved a plan on Friday to renovate 500 public bomb shelters and deploy 1,000 new mobile roadside shelters across the country. 'In light of the security situation, the government approved via a phone vote a plan to accelerate home front defence,' the defence ministry said. The provision of temporary accommodation for those left homeless by Iran's assault on civilian infrastructure has also become a pressing issue for the Israeli state. Such is the power of some of Iran's ballistic missiles that they can cause hundreds of homes in Israel's densely packed cities to be destroyed in a single blast. The Telegraph witnessed one such strike in the city of Holon, just south of Tel Aviv, on Thursday morning where 746 people from 250 families had to be relocated after their homes were classified as uninhabitable. Sunday's strike on Ramat Aviv was of a similar magnitude in terms of damage. As of Friday at 3pm, 30,735 damage claims had been received by the Israel Tax Authority, including 25,040 related to buildings, 2,623 related to vehicles and another 3,006 related to other property. Most of the displaced are being put up in hotels if they cannot stay with friends or relatives. Caroline Molcho was relocated temporarily to the Dan Panorama hotel in Tel Aviv after her home was destroyed in a strike last week. The French-Israeli had been in a safe room in her apartment when the missile hit. 'I feel so lucky – it really saved my life, but now we have no idea how long this process will last, how long will I stay here. The future is now really uncertain,' she said.

The Sun

36 minutes ago

• The Sun

Border crisis deepens as over 1,000 migrants cross Channel in just 48 hours despite France upping patrols

MORE than 1,000 migrants have crossed the Channel in small boats in just 48 hours. They arrived in 15 dinghies — despite French police ramping up beach patrols and deploying tear-gas to deter launches. 2 2 Home Office figures show 437 crossed in seven small boats on Friday, followed by 583 in eight the next day. It brought the total for the week to 2,083, and the tally for the year so far to 18,400 — up nearly 6,000 compared with this time in 2024. The surge heaps huge pressure on PM Sir Keir Starmer, who last week admitted the situation was 'deteriorating'. French officers were seen ramping up tactics on the beaches, firing gas at groups preparing to launch. But some stood by as migrants waded into the sea and clambered aboard dinghies unchallenged. The PM and French leaders Emmanuel Macron are expected to hold a summit next month focused on tackling the problem. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said Labour has 'totally lost control of our borders' after scrapping the Rwanda deterrent 'before it even started'. He added: 'Every single immigrant needs to be removed to a location outside Europe the minute they arrive. 'We need to repeal the Human Rights Act to stop illegal immigrants and foreign criminals abusing our rules to stay. 'And we should suspend the fishing deal until the French actually do what they are supposed to and stop these boats at sea.'