In brief
London police arrested 139 people after hundreds protested against the ban on Palestine Action, a group listed as a terrorist organisation. The arrests followed a government decision to proscribe the group in July 2025, and a Supreme Court appeal that will challenge that designation. The protest, the first mass demonstration against the ban since the new prime minister took office, was met with opposition from MPs who argue the arrests target expression of support rather than protest itself.
London police arrested 139 people after hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the United States embassy on Saturday to oppose the government’s ban on the pro‑Palestinian group Palestine Action.
Proscription and legal stakes
Palestine Action was classified as a "terrorist" organisation under United Kingdom law, with the proscription taking effect in July last year under the government of then‑Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The designation places the group on the same banned list that includes al‑Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).
Police officials say the majority of the arrests were for "expressing support for a proscribed organisation," rather than for the act of protesting against the ban itself. A post on X early Saturday evening noted, "139 people have now been arrested," up from the 48 detained earlier in the day.
The protest comes ahead of a Supreme Court appeal scheduled for Wednesday, which challenges the government’s proscription of Palestine Action and will determine whether the designation holds up under judicial scrutiny.
That appeal places the issue in the hands of the court system, underscoring the vital role of the judiciary in reviewing executive decisions that affect civil liberties and political expression.
The protest and its reception
Hundreds of people, many holding placards reading "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action," turned out outside the foreign diplomatic mission to display their opposition to what they describe as a political over‑reach and a crack‑down on free speech.
Lawmakers reacted quickly. Labour Party MP John McDonnell posted on X, arguing that protesting the government’s decision "cannot be automatically interpreted" as supporting the proscribed organisation, and that the government had "made the wrong decision in proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation".
John McDonnell, a Labour Party MP, said the following:
"Someone protesting against the government’s decision to proscribe an organisation cannot be ‘automatically interpreted’ as them supporting that organisation and therefore committing an arrestable offence. I believe the government ‘made the wrong decision in proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation’.">
The demonstration was the first mass protest against the proscription since Prime Minister Andy Burnham assumed the office in July. Its scale suggests growing public resistance to the ban and a heightened sense of urgency among those who see it as a suppression of pro‑Palestine voices.
Similar sentiment echoed outside the United States consulate in Edinburgh, where demonstrators also sang slogans in support of Palestine Action. No arrests were reported from that venue, indicating a split in police response between the capital and the Scottish capital.
Police officials highlighted the distinction between protesting a policy and supporting the organisation itself, a key point in the broader debate over the extent to which government designations of terror can constrain civil protest and expression.
With the Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday, the legal question remains: does the government have the authority to proscribe an advocacy group, and how does such a designation affect the right to protest?
Public accountability will hinge on the court’s findings, which could reverse the ban or reinforce the government's authority to control the conflict. The outcome will have implications for how the state can regulate groups that push for political change under the label of terrorism.
As London police prepared to enforce the ban, thousands of citizens detained for supporting the banned group represent a moment when government policy, legal authority, and public protest collided. The situation illustrates the delicate balance between national security concerns and democratic freedoms in a modern electorate.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court appeal beckons. Its decision will determine whether a government‑issued proscription can stand against the rights of citizens to challenge it, shaping future policy and court precedents on the limits of state power in England and Wales.
In the days ahead, the city will watch closely as the court listens to arguments and responds to a mounting agenda to scrutinise state actions that affect political speech and the capacity of ordinary citizens to engage with the issues they hold dear.
