Banning Dissent, Not Terror

The recent surge in terrorism-related arrests in Great Britain since 9/11 is not surprising to those familiar with the government’s reliance on counter-terrorism laws as a means of silencing dissent. Official data from the Home Office reveals that almost half of all terror arrests in the UK since 2001 have taken place in the past year, with over 3,000 people arrested between March 2025 and March 2026.

This trend is particularly alarming given the context in which these arrests are occurring. The proscription of Palestine Action, a direct action protest group targeting entities complicit in Israeli genocide against Palestinians, has led to widespread civil disobedience. Thousands have been arrested for allegedly supporting the group, with many charged under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act.

The government’s definition of terrorism is so broad that it encompasses behavior most people consider lawful or peaceful protest. This has led to a collapse in public trust, evident in the staggering increase in arrests over the past year. The data underscores the need for an updated definition of terrorism that balances the duty to safeguard the public with protecting individual rights and preventing overreach.

The use of counter-terrorism laws to silence dissent is a disturbing trend that has been building for years. As Raj Chada, head of criminal defence at Hodge Jones and Allen, noted earlier this year: “the most common terrorist in the UK at present is a pensioner at a silent vigil holding a placard.” This statement highlights how far the government has gone in suppressing opposition.

The Home Office’s response to these allegations is telling. A spokesperson insists that showing support for a proscribed organization is against the law, and decisions to arrest are operational matters for the police. However, this explanation does not hold water when considering the sheer number of arrests taking place under the Terrorism Act. It’s clear that the government is using these laws as a means to silence peaceful protesters who dare to speak out against genocide.

The conviction of four Palestine Action activists in June, deemed by a judge post-conviction to have had a “terrorist connection” for property damage during a raid on an Israeli factory, sets a chilling precedent. It sends a message that even the most lawful forms of protest can be criminalized under the guise of counter-terrorism.

The stakes are high: not just the freedom to protest but also the very fabric of democracy itself is at risk. When the government uses laws meant to protect national security as a means to suppress dissent, it erodes trust in institutions and undermines the public’s faith in their ability to speak truth to power. The implications are far-reaching: if peaceful protesters can be arrested for supporting a proscribed group, what’s next? Will we see the arrest of artists who critique government policy or journalists who expose human rights abuses?

The UK’s counter-terrorism laws have long been criticized for being too broad and open to abuse. It’s high time for a rethink – not just of these laws but also of how they’re used in practice. The data speaks for itself: almost half of all terror arrests since 9/11 have taken place in the past year, with thousands more people facing charges under the Terrorism Act.

As the UK Supreme Court hears the ongoing legal challenge to the proscription of Palestine Action, one thing is clear: the government’s use of counter-terrorism laws to silence dissent will only continue to grow unless there’s a fundamental shift in approach. Will we see meaningful reforms that balance security with freedom, or will we witness the further erosion of democratic norms? Only time will tell.

But for now, one thing remains certain: as long as peaceful protesters can be arrested for supporting a proscribed group, we’re not just living in a country with counter-terrorism laws – we’re living under siege.