Exposing the UK’s Double Standard: When Protest Becomes Terrorism
Britain has always had a turbulent relationship with protest. From suffragettes smashing windows to striking miners facing mounted police at Orgreave, civil disobedience has been both condemned and celebrated as part of democratic life. In recent years, two groups have embodied this tradition: Palestine Action (PA) and Just Stop Oil (JSO).
Both embrace disruption. Both reject the idea that politely worded petitions are enough in the face of state violence or climate collapse. Yet the British government has chosen to treat them in radically different ways. The difference reveals not just a double standard but a creeping misuse of power that risks becoming normalised.
Disclaimer: This article does not endorse, encourage, or condone any unlawful activity, including the activities of organisations proscribed under UK law such as Palestine Action. References to these groups are provided solely for analysis and public-interest commentary.
Palestine Action: Redefining Protest as Terrorism
In July 2025, the Home Office formally proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. That decision was extraordinary. Groups usually placed on the proscribed list include armed organisations that use violence against people: al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Real IRA. By contrast, Palestine Action’s tactics, which have been widely condemned in court and are unlawful under UK law, have included damaging and occupying arms factories, particularly those of Elbit Systems, which supplies the Israeli military.
The actions are illegal and often costly. Machinery has been destroyed, factory walls drenched in paint, and equipment rendered useless. In Oldham, sustained pressure forced the permanent closure of an Elbit drone parts plant.Supporters have characterised these actions as a form of protest against companies they see as complicit in war crimes, but in law they remain criminal acts of property damage, which the government has chosen to frame within a terrorism context.
Since proscription, more than a thousand people have been arrested not for smashing machinery but for showing support: holding placards, chanting slogans, or attending vigils. Over a hundred face charges that carry sentences of up to 14 years.
Just Stop Oil: Disruption Without Terrorism
By contrast, Just Stop Oil has staged some of the most disruptive protests in modern Britain. Roads have been blocked, airports targeted, cultural and sporting events disrupted. Commuters fume, ambulance drivers struggle to get through, and the public seethes.
Activists have received injunctions, faced Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, and been jailed for up to several years. Yet JSO has not been proscribed. Supporting the group is still legal. You can march under their banner, donate to their campaigns, or shout their slogans without being branded a terrorist.
This distinction is crucial. PA is punished not only for actions but for political association. JSO is punished only for acts of disruption.
A Manufactured Double Standard
The government insists the difference lies in property damage. PA destroys equipment; JSO inconveniences the public. Yet this is a hollow distinction. Protest movements throughout history have attacked property. The suffragettes cut telegraph wires, set fire to empty buildings, and smashed thousands of windows. Striking miners sabotaged equipment. None were called terrorists.
The reality is simpler. PA challenges Britain’s role in supplying weapons to Israel, a foreign policy pillar the government is unwilling to compromise. JSO challenges Britain’s addiction to fossil fuels, which the government can at least acknowledge must eventually end.
In other words: disrupt traffic, and you are a nuisance. Disrupt the arms trade, and you are an extremist.
The Psychology of Power
This reveals a deeper truth about how states respond to dissent. Governments tolerate protest until it collides with strategic interests. Arms exports are central to Britain’s international identity and its relationship with allies, particularly the United States and Israel. Attacks on the arms trade are treated as attacks on the state itself.
Seen this way, proscribing PA is not about damage to factory roofs or office windows. It is about drawing a red line around Britain’s role in global militarism. Cross that line and you are no longer a protester but an enemy.
Imported Repression
This shift mirrors trends in the United States, where counter-terror frameworks built after 9/11 have been repurposed to stifle dissent. American activists opposing fascism have found themselves surveilled, infiltrated, and prosecuted under terrorism statutes. The UK now appears to be following that playbook.
The danger is obvious. Once the state can redefine protest as terrorism, the scope of repression expands. What is exceptional today becomes normal tomorrow. The machinery of counter-terror policing, designed for armed groups, is deployed against citizens with placards and spray paint.
Why It Matters
This creeping overreach should alarm anyone who values democratic freedoms. If damaging property in the pursuit of justice is terrorism, then so too were the suffragettes. If chanting outside a factory can lead to 14 years in prison, the line between dissent and extremism no longer exists.
Britain is not criminalising violence here; it is criminalising solidarity. And it is doing so selectively, in ways that reveal political priorities rather than consistent legal principles.
Simply Put
The treatment of Palestine Action and Just Stop Oil exposes a profound double standard. Both movements embrace disruption. Both break the law. While neither group has been accused of deliberately targeting people, both have engaged in disruptive or unlawful tactics that have resulted in arrests and prosecutions. Yet only one is branded as terrorism.
This is not about consistency. It is about power. Protest that embarrasses the government is tolerated. Protest that threatens the defence industry is crushed. By importing the counter-terror logic of the United States, the UK risks normalising authoritarian responses to dissent.
If we accept that, the question is no longer whether protest is legal but whether it is permitted. And that strikes at the very heart of democracy.
Table of Contents
