Head of IHRC Advocacy, Abed Choudhury, unpacks the vicious authoritarianism driving UK discourses on proscription of dissenting voices and protest, from Palestine Action to IHRC itself.
The UK government’s use of anti-terror legislation has drifted from authoritarian excess to something closer to farce. What began as a blunt instrument to target organisations allegedly “concerned in terrorism” has now become a political bludgeon — wielded not to protect public safety, but to criminalise dissent, punish disruption, and whitewash complicity in international crimes.
GB News’ presenter, Martin Daubney, claimed Palestine Action should be banned not because it harms life or threatens public safety, but because it caused financial damage to property that the taxpayer have to foot.
As early as 2006, the Islamic Human Rights Commission warned that the problem lay not just in how anti-terror laws were being applied, but in how dangerously vague the legal definition of terrorism had become. The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as action or threat of action “for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause,” intended to “influence a government or to intimidate the public” — where that action includes violence against a person, serious property damage, endangering life, risking public health or safety, or seriously disrupting an electronic system. Crucially, the public or government being influenced need not be British — any state or population qualifies, regardless of whether that state is a democracy. This opens the door to criminalising even lawful political campaigning against dictatorships. Once the Home Secretary “reasonably believes” someone falls under this definition, they can be certified as a suspected international terrorist and subjected to sweeping restrictions.[i]
Which is why the report warned:
Section 21 of the Act allows the Home Secretary to proscribe organizations involved in or associated with the glorification of acts of terrorism. Due to the broad definition given to “terrorism”, this is an extremely dangerous development as it opens the door for non-violent groups to be proscribed for defending the right of resistance under international law.[ii] [emphasis added]
And further states:
Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe organisations he believes are “concerned in terrorism”. Both the wide definition of terrorism and the vagueness of the grounds for proscription could lead to this being abused to shut down legitimate protest organisations.[iii] [emphasis added]
In a foreshadowing of what was to come, the report states:
Proscription occurs without a case being proved in court. The organisation does not get to defend itself against the proscription. It can only appeal against proscription after the fact. Thus the Home Secretary can in effect criminalise the members and supporters of an organisation without even having to prove any wrongdoing on their part.[iv] [emphasis added]
That last bit is striking, because if you read Yvette Cooper’s comments to Parliament justifying the proscription, she doesn’t provide evidence of terrorism. Criminal damage, yes, but nothing that ordinary people would reasonably consider terrorism. She even states in the context of protests against Elbit
“Such incidents do not represent legitimate or peaceful protest. Regardless of whether this incident itself amounts to terrorism, such activity is clearly intimidatory and unacceptable.” [emphasis added]
In other words: we don’t care whether this is terrorism, we just don’t like you targeting our arms industry, so we will label you a terrorist.
This is what function creep looks like: a law introduced for a narrow, urgent purpose — tackling violent terrorism — is being gradually and cynically expanded to include non-violent protest, symbolic property damage, and ideological opposition. Proscription becomes a weapon to wield against political opponents.
The arguments are politically opportunistic and morally bankrupt.
This climate of weaponised proscription is how a politician like David Taylor can stand in Parliament and – with a straight face – call for the banning of the IHRC. His statement felt more like a paid-for promotion – parroting talking points from those beating the drums of war in Gaza and Iran, eager to eliminate dissent and delegitimise any organisation that calls out state violence.
Taylor’s justification for banning IHRC is as revealing as it is absurd:
- They “spread anti-British propaganda” – a vague, unevidenced and meaningless accusation.
- They have “links to Iran” — a claim with no credible evidence, but one Taylor and others keep recycling in the hope that repetition will make it pass for truth.
- They used a placard “celebrating” the Ayatollah with the phrase “on the right side of history” – a wilfully misread anti-war poster, his air-quoted derision only confirming his own political illiteracy.
Groups like Palestine Action and now IHRC, are being targeted not for threatening life or security, but for challenging UK complicity in Israeli war crimes. They are effective, visible, and morally uncompromising — and that is what makes them a threat in the eyes of figures like Daubney and Taylor, as well as a government that prioritises military contracts and diplomatic impunity over justice and accountability.
What we are witnessing is not the rule of law — it is the rule of political preference. Dissenters are no longer argued with. They are simply labelled: terrorist, extremist, threat. And that labelling will allow the full weight of the state to be used against them.
This kind of logic reveals the fragility of those who hold power, and the increasing desperation with which they defend it.
Proscription has lost its meaning. It’s no longer about stopping terrorism — it’s about suppressing resistance, criminalising conscience, and punishing those who refuse to stay silent in the face of injustice. It sends a message — not to those who commit violence against the powerless, but to those who dare to confront it.
Abed Choudhury heads IHRC Advocacy, where he focuses on challenging discrimination, political repression, and human rights abuses through strategic advocacy. With over a decade of experience, he has supported marginalised communities and made submissions to international bodies including the UN and the International Criminal Court. He is also a Director at IHRC Legal and can be found on LinkedIn @AbedChoudhury.
* This article was updated on 25 June to add information and context from the 2006 IHRC report, British Anti-terrorism: A Modern day Witchhunt.
[i] Ansari, Fahad. British Anti-Terrorism:A Modern Day Witch-hunt (London: IHRC 2005), p.14-15.
[ii] Ibid, p.19.
[iii] Ibid, p.56.
[iv] Ibid.
Image: Official portrait of David Taylor MP, by Laurie Noble, Creative Commons 3.0
David Taylor wants to proscribe IHRC
Head of IHRC Advocacy, Abed Choudhury, unpacks the vicious authoritarianism driving UK discourses on proscription of dissenting voices and protest, from Palestine Action to IHRC itself.
The UK government’s use of anti-terror legislation has drifted from authoritarian excess to something closer to farce. What began as a blunt instrument to target organisations allegedly “concerned in terrorism” has now become a political bludgeon — wielded not to protect public safety, but to criminalise dissent, punish disruption, and whitewash complicity in international crimes.
GB News’ presenter, Martin Daubney, claimed Palestine Action should be banned not because it harms life or threatens public safety, but because it caused financial damage to property that the taxpayer have to foot.
As early as 2006, the Islamic Human Rights Commission warned that the problem lay not just in how anti-terror laws were being applied, but in how dangerously vague the legal definition of terrorism had become. The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as action or threat of action “for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause,” intended to “influence a government or to intimidate the public” — where that action includes violence against a person, serious property damage, endangering life, risking public health or safety, or seriously disrupting an electronic system. Crucially, the public or government being influenced need not be British — any state or population qualifies, regardless of whether that state is a democracy. This opens the door to criminalising even lawful political campaigning against dictatorships. Once the Home Secretary “reasonably believes” someone falls under this definition, they can be certified as a suspected international terrorist and subjected to sweeping restrictions.[i]
Which is why the report warned:
And further states:
In a foreshadowing of what was to come, the report states:
That last bit is striking, because if you read Yvette Cooper’s comments to Parliament justifying the proscription, she doesn’t provide evidence of terrorism. Criminal damage, yes, but nothing that ordinary people would reasonably consider terrorism. She even states in the context of protests against Elbit
In other words: we don’t care whether this is terrorism, we just don’t like you targeting our arms industry, so we will label you a terrorist.
This is what function creep looks like: a law introduced for a narrow, urgent purpose — tackling violent terrorism — is being gradually and cynically expanded to include non-violent protest, symbolic property damage, and ideological opposition. Proscription becomes a weapon to wield against political opponents.
The arguments are politically opportunistic and morally bankrupt.
This climate of weaponised proscription is how a politician like David Taylor can stand in Parliament and – with a straight face – call for the banning of the IHRC. His statement felt more like a paid-for promotion – parroting talking points from those beating the drums of war in Gaza and Iran, eager to eliminate dissent and delegitimise any organisation that calls out state violence.
Taylor’s justification for banning IHRC is as revealing as it is absurd:
Groups like Palestine Action and now IHRC, are being targeted not for threatening life or security, but for challenging UK complicity in Israeli war crimes. They are effective, visible, and morally uncompromising — and that is what makes them a threat in the eyes of figures like Daubney and Taylor, as well as a government that prioritises military contracts and diplomatic impunity over justice and accountability.
What we are witnessing is not the rule of law — it is the rule of political preference. Dissenters are no longer argued with. They are simply labelled: terrorist, extremist, threat. And that labelling will allow the full weight of the state to be used against them.
This kind of logic reveals the fragility of those who hold power, and the increasing desperation with which they defend it.
Proscription has lost its meaning. It’s no longer about stopping terrorism — it’s about suppressing resistance, criminalising conscience, and punishing those who refuse to stay silent in the face of injustice. It sends a message — not to those who commit violence against the powerless, but to those who dare to confront it.
Abed Choudhury heads IHRC Advocacy, where he focuses on challenging discrimination, political repression, and human rights abuses through strategic advocacy. With over a decade of experience, he has supported marginalised communities and made submissions to international bodies including the UN and the International Criminal Court. He is also a Director at IHRC Legal and can be found on LinkedIn @AbedChoudhury.
* This article was updated on 25 June to add information and context from the 2006 IHRC report, British Anti-terrorism: A Modern day Witchhunt.
[i] Ansari, Fahad. British Anti-Terrorism:A Modern Day Witch-hunt (London: IHRC 2005), p.14-15.
[ii] Ibid, p.19.
[iii] Ibid, p.56.
[iv] Ibid.
Image: Official portrait of David Taylor MP, by Laurie Noble, Creative Commons 3.0
Help us reach more people and raise more awareness by sharing this page
Featured Campaigns
Trending Posts
IHRC responds to Telegraph/UKLFI smear attempt against Islamic summer camp
IHRC letter to Watford Council re UKLFI attack on Muslim summer camp
Letter to Brent council re UKLFI attack on Islamic summer camp
Letter to Telegraph re UKLFI attack on Muslim summer camp
Demonstration for Palestine and Iran