Absolutely. The fact that you can be fined or jailed in Germany for insulting politicians like Friedrich Merz is insane. And of course, he’s perfectly allowed to call his opponents whatever he pleases if it benefits him. Now I wonder what other regime in Germany’s past has laws against criticizing the chancellor…

Get a grip. PA is a proscribed organisation, and with good justification. If Sally wishes to fund the organisation, she must face the same consequences as those funding similar organisations.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/803/pdfs/uksiem_202...

The justification isn't that good, it's "damage to property" repeatedly which yeah criminal but not terrorism. The UK's proscription of Palestine Action is hanging on by threadbare credibility, it's political.

Damage to property including military bases, damage to property considered to be Jewish-owned, and a documented list of targets including charities, government buildings and financial institutions.

Let’s not trivialise such activities.

We’re firmly beyond the pale when you use a decommissioned prison van as a battering ram, attack security personnel with a sledgehammer and mark people with spray paint.

That is the prepared attack line the Govt have armed you with yes, but if you scroll the document and compare them to every other proscribed group it's sort of clear they're not terrorists, and the UK populace seem to similarly feel this is silly politicking.

> damage to property considered to be Jewish-owned

I could not possibly take you less seriously after this, you are mixing your narratives up into something no one will swallow.

Palestine Action vandalised _Jewish_ property. Not Israeli, not Zionist, just a Jewish-owned shop (where the owners happen to be Orthodox and anti-Zionists) in a Jewish neighbourhood, to bring fear into the Jewish community in echoes of Kristallnacht.

It’s ironic when a “pro-Palestine” movement is working to convince Jews they are not safe outside of Israel.

Wow, a throwaway account posting propaganda gibberish. Groundbreaking. Do you have any more interesting lies or just the same generic ones?

The ban came because they damaged military aircraft, and most other countries' anti-terrorism laws would also have applied if the same thing had been done to their militaries - the UK is far from an outlier here.

The better questions are whether Pal Action deliberately sought to provoke the ban and, if so, whether it's a good idea to have given them what they appear to have wanted.

They certainly don't seem to pose as much of a threat to national security as other proscribed groups so there's no solid functional case for banning them, merely the purely legalistic one.