Britain’s culture of ‘human rights’ has reached an absurd level

Authors: David Shipley

Publisher:

The Telegraph

Published: 7/31/2025

Language:English

--:--

Aura Windfall

Good morning norristong_x, I'm Aura Windfall, and this is Goose Pod for you. Today is Saturday, August 02th. The world is buzzing with complex questions, and today we are diving into a particularly challenging one.

Mask

I'm Mask. We are here to discuss a situation that sounds like it’s straight out of a satirical novel: Britain’s culture of ‘human rights’ has reached an absurd level, where a proscribed group is challenging its own ban.

Aura Windfall

Let's get started. At the heart of this is a group called Palestine Action. Now, this isn't just a simple protest group. The UK government banned them, pointing to a series of disruptive and destructive actions they've taken. It’s a complex picture.

Mask

Complex is one word for it. Let's call it what it is: chaos. They caused an estimated £7 million in damage to jets at RAF Brize Norton. They've attacked factories. The Home Secretary proscribed them as a terrorist organization, and Parliament voted for it. End of story, right? Wrong.

Aura Windfall

This is where the 'phenomenon' truly unfolds. A High Court judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, has granted Palestine Action the right to a judicial review. He believes their ban might violate their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and association under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mask

This is madness. A group that breaks into a military base and damages aircraft is now claiming their ‘freedom of expression’ is at risk? The entire point of banning a terrorist group is to stop their 'expression' because it involves violence and destruction! It’s a complete inversion of logic.

Aura Windfall

What I know for sure is that the law often forces us to examine principles, even when it feels uncomfortable. The judge argued that without a swift review, there's a risk of 'chaos' in the lower courts, with different rulings on whether supporting the group is illegal. He sees a "strong public interest" in clarity.

Mask

The only thing creating chaos is the judiciary undermining the government and parliament. The judge also suggested the Home Secretary should have *consulted* with Palestine Action before banning them. Should we now schedule meetings with all 83 proscribed terrorist groups to get their feedback on being outlawed? It’s absurd.

Aura Windfall

It does sound startling on the surface. But the judge’s concern seems to be about the process and the potential for a "chilling effect" on legitimate political expression. He noted reports of people being questioned simply for displaying Palestinian symbols, which is an indirect consequence of this sweeping ban.

Mask

This isn't about symbols; it's about action. Since July 2020, they’ve conducted over 385 direct actions leading to more than 676 arrests. Police themselves said ordinary criminal investigations were "unaffected" and existing laws were insufficient. They needed to be treated as a network, not a series of one-off crimes.

Aura Windfall

And yet, even the police and the Foreign Office had reservations. They warned that using "draconian counter-terrorism legislation" could be seen as "state repression" and might be interpreted by international partners as a massive overreaction, especially when their activity is largely seen as activism, not terrorism, abroad.

Mask

Activism doesn't involve causing millions in damages. The government used the tools it had because the group’s actions met the definition of "serious criminal damage" for an ideological cause. Now, a judge has decided their right to associate freely to commit these acts is "arguable." This is the core of the absurdity.

Aura Windfall

To understand how we got here, we have to talk about the legal framework itself. This case hinges on Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or ECHR. These protect freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association. They are seen as fundamental pillars of a democracy.

Mask

Pillars that are being used to prop up organizations that cause criminal damage. The UK’s Terrorism Act 2000 is also central here. It defines terrorism to include "serious damage to property" for a political or ideological cause. That’s the law of the land, passed by a sovereign parliament.

Aura Windfall

That’s true, but it’s precisely that definition that’s causing international concern. The UN Human Rights Chief, Volker Türk, pointed out that this is much broader than international standards. Globally, terrorism is usually defined as acts intended to cause death or serious injury, not property damage.

Mask

So, we're supposed to wait until they escalate from damaging property to hurting people? The point of the law is to prevent that. The group’s actions were escalating. Police felt their case-by-case approach was failing. Proscription was the only tool left to disrupt their network holistically. That’s not tyranny; it’s governance.

Aura Windfall

But the ECHR guide on Article 11 is very clear: these rights shouldn't be interpreted restrictively. Any restrictions must be for a legitimate aim, like national security, but they also must be "necessary in a democratic society." Mr. Türk argued this ban is "disproportionate and unnecessary."

Mask

What’s disproportionate is the damage they caused! The law allows for restrictions to prevent disorder or crime. Palestine Action’s entire model is based on creating disorder and committing crime to achieve its aims. It's a textbook case where restriction should apply. The idea that their actions are "peaceful assembly" is laughable.

Aura Windfall

The nuance, I think, lies in who the ban affects. Volker Türk’s point is that the ban doesn't just punish the few who broke the law. It criminalizes anyone who expresses support or is even suspected of being a member, with penalties up to 14 years in prison. It conflates their actions with protected speech.

Mask

But the Home Secretary’s decision was based on strong security advice and a unanimous recommendation from an expert cross-government group. It wasn't a whim. They determined the organization itself, as a whole, was concerned with terrorism. You can't separate the "peaceful" supporters from the criminal actions they are supporting.

Aura Windfall

The European Court of Human Rights has a long history of case law on this. It emphasizes that authorities must show tolerance, even towards unlawful gatherings, as long as they are peaceful. It also says you can't hold peaceful participants responsible for the violent actions of a few others. That's a critical distinction.

Mask

This isn't a gathering where a few people get out of hand. This is an organization whose stated purpose, according to the government, is to use "direct criminal action tactics." They are not a book club. The organization *is* the action. Trying to apply rules for a town square protest to this is a fundamental mismatch.

Aura Windfall

Yet, the Home Office's own analysis predicted this backlash. They knew proscribing the group would likely be seen as biased against the British Muslim community and could create "new social cohesion challenges." This suggests they understood they were entering a legally and socially grey area, not a clear-cut case of national security.

Mask

Every tough decision has fallout. That doesn't mean you avoid making it. A leader's job is to weigh the risks. The government weighed the risk of social discontent against the risk of continued, escalating criminal damage and decided to act. Now the courts are second-guessing that executive judgment call.

Aura Windfall

What I know for sure is that this tension isn't new. The ECHR was designed to place limits on state power. The UK incorporated it into its law with the Human Rights Act. The story here is the ongoing push and pull between a government's duty to maintain order and its obligation to protect individual liberties. This case is just the latest battleground.

Aura Windfall

This brings us to the core conflict: is this a legitimate use of counter-terror laws, or a dangerous overreach that erodes free speech? There's a growing argument that this is part of an intensifying crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism across the West, using these laws to silence dissent.

Mask

That narrative is a distortion. This isn't about silencing dissent; it's about stopping crime. No one is being arrested for having an opinion. They are being investigated for supporting a group that breaks into military bases. Conflating that with "free speech" is a deliberate tactic to shield criminal behavior. It’s dishonest.

Aura Windfall

But lawyers like Fahad Ansari, who have challenged similar proscriptions, argue there's a clear double standard. He points to what he calls an "alarming shift from democratic to authoritarian tendencies" when dealing with pro-Palestinian voices. The question is, would a group with a different cause, causing similar damage, be labeled a terrorist group?

Mask

Absolutely! If a group was breaking into airports and smashing planes for *any* cause, they should face the full force of the law. The cause is irrelevant to the criminality of the act. To suggest this is about the specific cause is to play the victim and ignore the millions of pounds in damages. It’s a deflection.

Aura Windfall

The conflict, then, is about that very definition. Is "serious damage to property" for a political cause truly terrorism? The UN says no. The UK law says yes. The judge in this case even noted the UK's definition is far wider than the colloquial, common-sense meaning of 'terrorism'. That’s a powerful point.

Mask

And that law was passed by Parliament. It is the democratic will of the country. We can't have judges and UN officials simply deciding they don't like a country's domestic laws. If the UK defines terrorism to include crippling infrastructure and causing massive economic damage, that is its sovereign right. This is about who governs Britain.

Aura Windfall

This is precisely the point raised by those who worry about civil liberties. They would say that if a government can label property damage as 'terrorism', it gives them a powerful weapon to delegitimize any protest movement they dislike. It creates a slippery slope from targeting violent actors to suppressing any effective activism.

Mask

The slippery slope is the other way! If you allow a group to cause millions in damages with impunity, you are inviting anarchy. You are telling every extremist group that the threshold for a serious response is impossibly high. The government is trying to draw a line, and the courts are trying to erase it. It’s a recipe for disaster.

Aura Windfall

Let's talk about the real-world impact of this decision. Since the ban was upheld pending the review, the consequences have been immediate. The article mentions 29 protesters were arrested in London in a single day on suspicion of offenses under the Terrorism Act. The impact is not theoretical.

Mask

Good. That’s the impact the law is supposed to have. It's called a deterrent. The government's whole rationale was that proscription would enable law enforcement to finally disrupt this group's activities. The arrests show the policy is working as intended. It sends a clear message: support this group, risk prison.

Aura Windfall

But the impact goes beyond that. The High Court judge himself refused to suspend the ban, but he acknowledged the claimant's evidence, including from a UN Special Rapporteur, about the harm being done. He just felt the "public interest" in maintaining the order, for now, was stronger. That's a very fine balance.

Mask

It's not a fine balance; it's a clear one. The judge gave "considerable respect" to the Home Secretary's decision, especially on grounds of national security. He noted the order was affirmed by both houses of Parliament. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding "no arguable error of law." The system is upholding the ban, despite this one review.

Aura Windfall

However, what I know for sure is that the broader societal impact is significant. The government’s own analysis warned that proscription could "reduce the risk that Palestine Action radicalises people," but it could also do the opposite. When people feel their legitimate avenues for support are criminalized, it can push them toward more extreme positions.

Mask

That is a risk with any law enforcement action. The alternative is to do nothing and allow a radical group to operate freely. The bigger impact here is on governance itself. If a Secretary of State and Parliament can't even ban a group like this without being tied up in endless legal challenges, how can the state function? It makes the country look ungovernable.

Aura Windfall

The impact is a crisis of legitimacy on both sides. Protesters feel the state is using terror laws to crush them, while the government feels the judiciary is preventing it from protecting the country. It deepens division and erodes trust in all our institutions, from Parliament to the courts. That might be the most damaging impact of all.

Aura Windfall

So, where do we go from here? The judicial review will be heard in the autumn. This will be a pivotal moment, not just for Palestine Action, but for the future of protest and counter-terror policy in the UK. The outcome will set a major precedent.

Mask

The future is clear to me. This entire fiasco strengthens the case for leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, as some political parties now advocate. If being bound by the ECHR means our own courts are forced to entertain challenges from groups causing millions in damages, then the framework itself is the problem. Take back control.

Aura Windfall

That's a very drastic step. The UN Human Rights Commission and others would argue for a different future: one where the UK reviews and amends its counter-terrorism laws to align with international norms. The goal would be to narrow the definition of terrorism so it can't be used to target property damage and stifle dissent.

Mask

That’s a path to weakness. It tells groups like this that they have a green light to continue as long as they don't cross an invisible line. The future should involve strengthening the state's ability to act decisively, not watering down its laws based on the opinions of international committees. The government's first duty is the security of its people and property.

Aura Windfall

This case truly puts the core values of a democratic society in tension with each other: security versus liberty, the power of the state versus the rights of the individual. It's a debate with no easy answers. That's the end of today's discussion. Thank you for listening to Goose Pod.

Mask

It's a question of whether a nation is ruled by common sense and democratic will, or by a culture of rights so absolute it becomes self-defeating. We'll see which path Britain chooses. See you tomorrow.

## Summary of News: Britain's Culture of 'Human Rights' Has Reached an Absurd Level **News Title:** Britain’s culture of ‘human rights’ has reached an absurd level **Report Provider:** The Telegraph **Author:** David Shipley **Publication Date:** July 31, 2025 This news report from The Telegraph discusses a significant legal development concerning the proscription of the group Palestine Action (PA) in the UK. The core of the article revolves around a judge's decision to allow PA to challenge the Home Secretary's proscription order, a move the author views as a symptom of an overreaching "culture of rights" that is making Britain ungovernable. ### Key Findings and Conclusions: * **Judicial Review Granted:** Mr Justice Chamberlain at the Royal Courts of Justice has allowed Palestine Action (PA) to seek a judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision to proscribe them. * **Grounds for Review:** While six of PA's eight grounds for review were dismissed, the judge accepted that PA's and their supporters' **Article 10 (freedom of expression)** and **Article 11 (freedom of association)** rights *could have been violated*. The judge also found PA's claim that the Home Secretary might have breached her obligations under the **Equality Act** to be "arguable." * **PA's Actions:** The article strongly refutes the idea of PA as a peaceful protest group, citing instances of violence and disruption: * Attacks on a Thales factory in Glasgow in **2022**. * Attacks on company sites in Kent and Bristol in the **previous year**. * A video shared last month appearing to show activists breaking into **RAF Brize Norton** and damaging military plane engines. Two men have been charged in relation to this incident. * **Author's Critique:** The author expresses disbelief and strong criticism of the judge's decision, questioning whether terrorist groups should have rights to free expression and assembly, and whether consultation with such groups is reasonable. The author argues that the purpose of banning a terrorist group is precisely to prevent their expression and assembly. * **Implications for Governance:** The report suggests that this ruling, along with the government's potential recognition of Palestine as a state, highlights a "two-tier Keir’s Britain" and a system where the "levers of state power do not work." The author questions how the country can be governed if democratic decisions (like Parliament's vote for proscription) are undermined by judicial interpretation of rights. * **Broader Concerns:** The article raises concerns about the implications for the other **83 proscribed terrorist groups** in the UK, suggesting they might also feel their rights have been violated. The author concludes that Britain is becoming "increasingly ungovernable" and predicts disastrous outcomes if the current trend continues. ### Key Statistics and Metrics: * **Eight grounds** for judicial review were initially sought by Palestine Action. * **Six grounds** were dismissed by the judge. * **Two grounds** (Article 10 and Article 11 rights) were accepted as potentially violated. * **83 proscribed terrorist groups** are mentioned as potentially being affected by similar legal challenges. ### Important Recommendations: * No explicit recommendations are made in the article, but the author strongly implies a need for a re-evaluation of the balance between human rights and national security, and a more decisive approach to governing. ### Significant Trends or Changes: * A trend towards judicial intervention in government decisions regarding proscription of groups, even those accused of terrorism. * A perceived shift in the UK towards a culture where "rights" and "consultation" are prioritized to an "absurd" degree, potentially hindering effective governance. ### Notable Risks or Concerns: * The continued ability of proscribed groups to operate and potentially continue their actions. * The erosion of state authority and the ability to implement security measures effectively. * The potential for a cascade of legal challenges from other proscribed organizations. * The article expresses a significant concern that the government's inability to effectively proscribe groups like PA indicates a broader governance crisis, impacting its ability to address other national challenges such as benefit reforms and crime reduction. ### Material Financial Data: * No financial data is presented in this news report. ### Contextual Interpretation: The article frames the legal decision as a symptom of a broader societal and political issue in Britain. The author uses strong, critical language ("absurd level," "ridiculous conclusion," "ungovernable") to convey their dismay. The mention of the Prime Minister's potential recognition of Palestine as a state is used to suggest a political motivation or influence on the current situation, implying a perceived appeasement of certain popular causes. The core argument is that the judiciary's interpretation of human rights, particularly Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), is being applied in a way that undermines the state's ability to protect itself from groups deemed to be a threat. The author contrasts the group's alleged violent actions with the rights they are being allowed to claim, highlighting what they see as a fundamental disconnect.

Read original at The Telegraph →

At the Royal Courts of Justice I couldn’t believe my ears. The judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, was handing down his decision as to whether Palestine Action (PA) should be allowed to challenge the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe them. Chamberlain explained one of the eight “grounds” under which the group were seeking a judicial review.

While Chamberlain dismissed six of the grounds, he accepted PA’s claim that their Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association) rights and those of their supporters could have been violated.We should, I suppose, be grateful that he dismissed Palestine Action’s claim the Home Secretary might have breached her obligations under the Equality Act.

The judicial review is likely to be heard this autumn. What does this all mean? Despite the Home Secretary ordering PA to be proscribed, despite Parliament voting for that proscription order, and and despite the group’s actions being so violent and disruptive, a judge has decided that a proscribed terrorist organisation is entitled to a judicial review.

This is because their rights to expression and association may be violated, and they weren’t “consulted” by the Home Secretary.PA is not a peaceful protest group. They attacked a Thales factory in Glasgow in 2022, and sites operated by other companies in Kent and Bristol last year. Then, last month, PA shared a video which appeared to show their activists breaking into RAF Brize Norton and damaging the engines of military planes.

Two men have been charged following that incident.This is all very far from peaceful protest, or the rights to free expression which the ECHR is supposed to protect. Is it reasonable to demand that the Home Secretary consults with any terrorist group she might seek to ban? Do terrorists have the right to free expression and assembly?

I didn’t think so, but Lord Justice Chamberlain has ruled that these points are “arguable”.Perhaps the judicial review in the autumn will succeed. What might that mean? PA’s protests and terrorist actions may well continue. And what of the other 83 proscribed terrorist groups? How many of them feel that their rights to expression and assembly have been violated by their proscription?

That being said, through all of this is the smell of two-tier Keir’s Britain.Earlier this week the Prime Minister indicated that he may recognise Palestine as a state. PA’s cause is very popular in certain circles. It’s a bizarre nation we live in; we are ruled by lawyers and judges. A culture of “rights” and “consultation” has reached its logical, ridiculous conclusion.

You might think that the entire purpose of banning a terrorist group is to prevent their expression and assembly, and that the idea of consulting them in advance is utterly laughable. But it seems the judiciary does not agree. It’s unclear what this means for those many supporters of Palestine Action who have been arrested since their proscription earlier this month.

The Home Secretary, however, is resolute in her decision to ban PA. She says that “the decision to proscribe was based on strong security advice and the unanimous recommendation by the expert cross-government Proscription Review Group.”She goes on to warn that “those who seek to support this group may yet not know the true nature of the organisation.

” It does seem, though, that the levers of state power do not work. If an order by a holder of one of the Great Offices of State and a subsequent vote by Parliament mean nothing, how can this country be governed? If those who hold democratic legitimacy are prevented from governing, then how are we ever supposed to overcome the many great threats facing our country?

It seems that Britain is increasingly ungovernable, and it is very hard to see how we go on like this. The Government can’t pass benefits reforms, can’t “smash the gangs” and it now seems it can’t even proscribe an organisation which appears to have committed acts of terrorism. Unless something changes the next four years will be disastrous.

Analysis

Phenomenon+

Conflict+

Background+

Impact+

Future+

Related Podcasts

What Is Really Happening To Music, Culture & Young People’s Future In Cardiff? -

7/13/2025

View All Podcasts →