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.

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.

The argument is 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.

Image: Official portrait of David Taylor MP, by Laurie Noble, Creative Commons 3.0