A bad day for democracy and a good day for supporters of terror

The Palestine Action ruling means it is no longer politicians taking the ultimate decisions on national security; it is the judiciary Daily Telegraph 13/02/26 We live in a democracy under the rule of law, so the High Court’s ruling on the prescription of Palestine Action (PA) must be respected. Be clear, however, about what it means: it is another example of how it is no longer politicians, elected by and answerable to voters, who take the ultimate decisions on national security and protection of the public from terror. It is the judiciary.

When the High Court rules, as it did today, that “the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate” and that “a very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 Act”, it is imposing its will and its view of the threat posed by a group and individuals over that of ministers and Parliament. Legitimately so, of course, since that is the nature of judicial review. But deeply, profoundly and wrongly so – as a near-perfect example of how judicial review is now out of control. The court found that PA did indeed conduct acts of terror – but not enough to be considered a terrorist group. Alice in Wonderland has little on this. We have passed the point of no return Rightly, the ban on PA remains in place while the Government appeals. But it is plain that we have passed the point of no return. The court found that the ban breaches Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, over freedom of expression. We are in the same territory here as with other all-too-familiar examples of the courts blocking the actions of Parliament and the executive – rulings which so frustrated the last government and have led to a groundswell of support for the idea of replacing the Human Rights Act and pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights. The irony of all this is that PA should never have been able to get to the stage where it posed any threat to national security in the first place. The appeal against today’s ruling should proceed, but more is needed. The Government and Parliament must reassert their ability to act in the interests of national security. If that means new legislation to cover this – remember, the High Court upheld the argument that PA carried out terrorist acts – so be it. The worry now, however, is that with the Prime Minister clinging on to office for dear life and with Labour backbenchers likely to be more assertive, their overriding fear of the threat from sectarian Muslim pressure in so many constituencies means that we are going to see less, not more, determination to act against groups such as PA. Today is a bad day for democracy, and a good day for supporters of terror.