Police in Liverpool arrested more than 50 people during a demonstration held outside the Labour Party conference, where supporters gathered to voice their opposition to the banning of the activist group Palestine Action. Around 250 protesters occupied space outside the conference center, many displaying handmade banners explicitly stating their support for the organization. Officers moved in after warning the crowd that carrying materials supporting a proscribed organization is illegal, eventually detaining dozens under the Terrorism Act.
Merseyside Police defended the operation, stating that while they respect the right to lawful protest, these specific actions violated current legislation regarding prohibited groups. A force spokesperson emphasized that detailed plans were put in place to ensure policing remained fair and proportionate, noting that not everyone present at the scene was suspected of committing a crime. However, organizers from Defend Our Juries described the ban on Palestine Action as illogical and immoral, suggesting that continuing its enforcement is an unsustainable drain on public resources.
The crackdown sparked immediate backlash from human rights advocates, including Amnesty International, which labeled the arrests a shameful attack on freedom of speech. Critics pointed out that those taken into custody included individuals ranging from teenagers to elderly citizens, including 94 year old human rights barrister Margaret Owen. Kerry Moscogiuri, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, urged the government to reform laws that allow for such sweeping crackdowns on peaceful demonstrations over political grievances.
While protesters view the situation as a violation of civil liberties, the Home Office maintains that the prohibition of Palestine Action is unrelated to general support for Palestinian causes. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood stated that the government will robustly defend its position in court, citing evidence of significant criminal damage caused by the group toward legitimate businesses. Although courts have previously debated whether these activities warrant terrorism laws, both the High Court and Court of Appeal have acknowledged that members of the group engaged in criminal acts prior to being banned.