Irish author Sally Rooney has expressed immense relief and satisfaction following a landmark High Court ruling that declared the proscription of Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws unlawful. In an exclusive interview, the acclaimed writer of Normal People and Conversations with Friends described the decision as a crucial victory not only for the Palestine solidarity movement but also for fundamental civil liberties across Britain.
A Legal Defeat for Ministers
Just one week ago, three senior judges delivered a humiliating legal blow to government ministers by ruling that the ban on the direct action group was both disproportionate and unlawful. Palestine Action, which targets organizations it accuses of complicity in arming Israel, had been proscribed under the Terrorism Act, a move that Rooney characterized as "a truly extreme assault on ordinary rights and freedoms."
Rooney's Involvement and Concerns
Rooney provided two witness statements in support of the case brought by Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action. These statements were cited by legal representatives as evidence of the ban's detrimental impact on freedom of expression. The author revealed that she had previously canceled a trip to the United Kingdom to receive an award due to fears of potential arrest under the proscription.
In her second witness statement, Rooney warned that it was "almost certain" she would be unable to publish new works in the UK while the ban remained in effect, and that her existing books might need to be withdrawn from sale. She described this scenario as "a truly extreme incursion by the state into the realm of artistic expression."
The Core Legal Arguments
The High Court found that the proscription represented a "very significant interference" with rights to freedom of speech and assembly, which formed one of two successful grounds in Ammori's claim. Rooney emphasized that the central legal question was not whether Palestine Action's activities were justified, but "whether it ought to be a criminal offence even to have that debate."
She elaborated on the purpose of the Terrorism Act, stating: "The primary purpose of the Terrorism Act is not to criminalise acts of violence, which are already illegal, but to criminalise otherwise lawful acts of speech, association, financial dealings, and so on. These measures, which represent a significant infringement on free speech and other rights, were intended for use against armed groups that pose a serious threat to the public."
Disagreement with Judicial Characterization
While the judges ruled in favor of Ammori, they rejected the characterization of Palestine Action as non-violent or engaged in civil disobedience, describing it instead as an organization that "promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality." The court stated that the premise that property damage doesn't constitute violence "is a view that many would struggle to comprehend."
Rooney strongly disagreed with this assessment, arguing: "To me, and I think to many other people, the word 'violence' implies harm to a living being. Inanimate objects cannot suffer. And damaging one's own property – for instance, breaking up old belongings in order to dispose of them – clearly is not a form of violence."
She defended Palestine Action's tactics as "absolutely consistent with the tradition of civil disobedience, from the suffragettes to the environmental movement," and expressed bafflement at the judges' claim that civil disobedience must be "characterised by restraint."
Government Response and Future Implications
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood expressed disappointment with the ruling while citing the court's findings about Palestine Action's activities. "The proscription of Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process, endorsed by parliament," she stated. "Home secretaries must retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I intend to fight this judgment in the court of appeal."
Although the judges proposed quashing the proscription decision, Palestine Action remains banned temporarily as the court awaits arguments from the Home Office regarding maintaining the ban during the appeal process. Rooney questioned this approach, stating: "If an order is found to be unlawful or unconstitutional, then it seems to me that it ought to be quashed there and then."
Despite this temporary status, Rooney expressed confidence that "the order will soon be quashed altogether, and that my work will remain in print in the UK as a result." She added that she looks forward to visiting Britain again when that occurs and intends to use proceeds from her literary works to support Palestine Action's cause.
