Report on Civil Liberties and the Proscription of Palestine Action in the Context of SDG 16

Introduction: Legal Challenge and Implications for Fundamental Freedoms

A high court challenge has been initiated by the co-founder of Palestine Action against the UK government’s decision to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation. This proscription criminalises membership or support for the group, carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. These developments raise significant concerns regarding the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16), which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The legal challenge and the subsequent arrests of supporters directly test the principles of SDG 16, particularly Target 16.10, which seeks to ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.

Analysis of Incidents in Relation to SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Since the ban, approximately 200 individuals have been arrested on suspicion of supporting Palestine Action. These arrests, often occurring during peaceful demonstrations, highlight a potential conflict between national security legislation and the fundamental freedoms essential for achieving SDG 16. The actions taken against protestors, many of whom are elderly citizens, challenge the commitment to Target 16.7 (ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making) and Target 16.3 (promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice).

• Arrests have been made based on displaying signs, placards, and other forms of peaceful expression.
• The use of the Terrorism Act 2000 in these contexts is central to the ongoing debate about the proportionality of state responses to protest.
• The experiences of those arrested suggest a significant impact on civil liberties, which are a cornerstone of the strong institutions promoted by SDG 16.

Case Profiles: The Human Impact on Activists and Civil Liberties

1. Jon Farley, 67, Retired Educator

   • Incident: Arrested under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at a silent demonstration in Leeds for holding a satirical sign from Private Eye magazine.
   • SDG Relevance: This case questions the application of counter-terrorism laws to acts of satire and peaceful protest, potentially infringing upon the freedom of expression protected under SDG 16.10.

2. Marianne Sorrell, 80, Retired Educator

   • Incident: Arrested for holding a placard at a rally and detained for almost 27 hours. Her home was forcibly entered and searched, with officers confiscating personal items including books on Palestine, iPads, and materials related to climate activism.
   • SDG Relevance: The incident points to a potential erosion of the right to privacy and freedom of association. It challenges the principle of accountable institutions (SDG 16) and demonstrates how measures against one form of advocacy can impact others, such as climate action (SDG 13).

3. Trisha Fine, 75, Retired Educator

   • Incident: Detained for the same period as Ms. Sorrell. Bail conditions prohibit contact with her friend and require her to remain at her home address overnight. She was allegedly denied access to necessary antibiotics during her detention.
   • SDG Relevance: This case raises concerns about the treatment of detainees and their access to health and well-being (SDG 3) within the justice system, a key component of ensuring equal access to justice for all under SDG 16.3. The restrictive bail conditions impact freedom of association.

4. The Rev. Sue Parfitt, 83, Retired Priest

   • Incident: Arrested at a demonstration in Parliament Square while holding a placard in support of Palestine Action. She described the ban as a “loss of civil liberties.”
   • SDG Relevance: The arrest of a faith leader during a peaceful protest highlights the potential chilling effect of such legislation on civil society participation, which is vital for the inclusive decision-making processes outlined in SDG 16.7.

5. Deborah Hinton, 81, and Oliver Baines, 74

   • Incident: Arrested at a peaceful demonstration. Mr. Baines stated their protest was against the “politicised use of terror laws to suppress a non-violent campaign” and the broader “criminalisation of peaceful protest.”
   • SDG Relevance: Their statements directly address the core tenets of SDG 16. They argue that such legal measures risk weakening democratic institutions and intimidating citizens from exercising their fundamental freedoms, thereby hindering progress toward building peaceful, just, and inclusive societies.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article directly relates to SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. The core conflict discussed is between state institutions (the government, police) and citizens exercising their fundamental rights. The proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organization and the subsequent arrests of protesters highlight issues of justice, the rule of law, and the protection of civil liberties.

Specific Targets Identified

1. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

   • This target is central to the article. The individuals mentioned were arrested for exercising their freedom of speech and right to peaceful assembly. For instance, Jon Farley was arrested for holding a satirical sign, and Sue Parfitt was arrested for holding a placard stating her support for Palestine Action. Oliver Baines explicitly states, “This is about freedom of speech,” and Sue Parfitt calls the ban a “loss of civil liberties in this country,” directly referencing the freedoms this target seeks to protect.

2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   • The article highlights this target through several points. Firstly, the co-founder of Palestine Action is bringing a “high court challenge” against the ban, which is a direct use of the legal system to seek justice. Secondly, the experiences of those arrested question the fair application of the rule of law. Marianne Sorrell was held for almost 27 hours, and Trisha Fine was denied necessary antibiotics during her detention. These incidents raise concerns about the humane treatment of detainees and equal access to justice.

3. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   • The protests themselves are a form of public participation, where citizens voice their opposition to a government decision. The state’s response, as described in the article, is to arrest and intimidate protesters using terror laws. This suggests a breakdown in responsive governance, where dissent is suppressed rather than engaged with. Oliver Baines notes, “We’re resisting the politicised use of terror laws to suppress a non-violent campaign,” indicating a perception that decision-making is not inclusive or responsive to citizen concerns.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. Number of arbitrary detentions of human rights advocates (Implied under Indicator 16.10.1).

   • The article provides specific data that can serve as an indicator. It states, “About 200 people have been arrested on suspicion of publicly protesting in support for PA.” It then details the cases of several individuals, such as Jon Farley, Marianne Sorrell, and Sue Parfitt, who were arrested during peaceful demonstrations for non-violent acts like holding placards. The description of these arrests as “mind-boggling” and “shocking” suggests they are perceived as arbitrary.

2. Use of formal justice mechanisms to challenge government actions (Implied under Indicator 16.3.3).

   • The article explicitly mentions that Palestine Action’s co-founder “has won a bid to bring a high court challenge over the group’s ban.” This serves as a clear indicator of citizens accessing formal dispute resolution mechanisms to hold institutions accountable and challenge the legality of their actions.

3. Existence and application of laws that restrict fundamental freedoms (Implied under Indicator 16.10.2).

   • The article focuses on the application of the “Terrorism Act 2000” to proscribe a group and criminalize peaceful support for it. Jon Farley’s arrest was made “under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000.” The use of this specific legislation to arrest elderly, non-violent protesters is an indicator of how national laws can be implemented in ways that curtail the freedoms of speech and assembly.

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theguardian.com