UK increasingly uses anti-terror laws to crack down on protests and dissent

The UK's legal definition of terrorism is now far broader than what most people would consider terrorism. Under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, even “damage to property” can be classified as terrorism if it is carried out for political, religious, racial, or ideological motives and intended to influence the government or intimidate the public. The provision was controversial from the moment it was debated in Parliament in 1999.

Labour MP Alan Simpson warned at the time that designating attacks on property as terrorism would “alter the relationship between civil protest movements, Parliament, and the judicial system.” The Supreme Court later described the definition as “very broad,” while David Anderson, former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, called it “startlingly wide – even absurd in some cases.”

In a 2012 report, Anderson pointed out that the law allows members of any nationalist or separatist group to be labeled terrorists merely for participating in lawful armed conflict, even against brutal regimes. By 2014, he warned that subjecting people no one would consider terrorists to anti-terror laws risks eroding public trust in these special powers.

The proscription of terrorist organizations is also politically selective. The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), for instance, is banned in the UK, but its Syrian affiliate, the PYD, is not, because it was a Western ally against ISIS. In 2021, then-Home Secretary Priti Patel extended the ban to all of Hamas, including its political wing, despite many civilian members never having picked up a weapon.

Blurring the line between Hamas's military and political arms inadvertently lent legitimacy to Israel's view that the entire civilian administration of Hamas is part of a terrorist structure, justifying strikes on hospitals and schools. The asymmetry is stark: UK anti-terror law can criminalize non-state groups, whereas state terrorism, including by Israel, remains beyond reach.

The case of Palestine Action is a prime example. This direct-action group targets arms companies supplying Israel. In July 2025, the UK government proscribed the group under the Terrorism Act 2000. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk warned the decision “raises serious concerns that anti-terrorism legislation is being applied to activities that do not amount to terrorism.”

The ban was challenged in court. In February 2026, the Divisional Court ruled it unlawful, but on 15 June the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and upheld the ban. Chief Justice Sue Carr compared Palestine Action to the Suffragettes, arguing the group is not a “open, transparent civil disobedience protest group” but a “clandestine, cell-based organization.”

That comparison, however, is one-sided. History records that the Suffragettes themselves carried out political attacks on property and people, from attacking Winston Churchill with a horsewhip in 1909, throwing an axe at Prime Minister Asquith, burning down a theatre in Dublin, to placing phosphorus in post boxes that injured four postmen in 1913.

The Filton 25 case further illustrates the reality. The group of 25 who attacked the Elbit factory in Bristol were held for up to 18 months before trial. At trial in November 2025, a jury acquitted them of the more serious theft charge but could not reach a verdict on criminal damage. At retrial, four were convicted of criminal damage, with only one convicted of causing grievous bodily harm but without intent. The jury was not told that the convictions could be treated as having a “terrorist connection” during sentencing, and Judge Jeremy Johnson later ruled accordingly.

The consequences of banning Palestine Action extend beyond those directly involved. Since the proscription, expressing support for the group is itself a crime. Nearly 4,000 people have been arrested for holding signs supporting Palestine Action. According to the Home Office, in the year ending March 2026, there were 3,061 arrests related to terrorism, 2,819 of which involved suspected support for Palestine Action. The average age of those arrested for Palestine Action was 59, compared with 31 for other terrorism cases, and the majority were women.

This changes the average profile of a “terrorist” in the UK from a 31-year-old man to a 59-year-old woman. When the definition of terrorism is stretched too far, the special powers attached to the word stretch with it. As Orwell wrote: “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”