When people take to the streets, it’s often in the name of justice, freedom, or a cause they believe in.
But sometimes, the line between peaceful protest and something far more serious gets blurred.
That’s exactly what’s happening in Britain right now, with a wave of arrests linked to the banned group Palestine Action.
Among those caught up in this storm is 81-year-old Deborah Hinton, a retired magistrate from Cornwall, who insists she was willing to risk prison to stand up for what she calls the “right to protest.”
But the reality of her arrest – and what it represents – goes much deeper than one woman’s personal conviction.
An Elderly Protester in Handcuffs
Deborah Hinton still remembers the day she was arrested.
Sitting in her elegant Cornwall home, she described how police confiscated her handbag, her watch, and even the miniature OBE she happened to be wearing.
“I was shaking uncontrollably,” she said, recalling the trauma.
Her arrest wasn’t for trespassing or disorderly conduct.
It was for allegedly supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation – a charge that carries a maximum of 14 years behind bars.
A Movement Under the Microscope
Hinton wasn’t alone. More than 500 people were arrested in coordinated demonstrations supporting Palestine Action, a group that was officially banned earlier this year.
Critics claim the crackdown shows Britain slipping toward authoritarianism.
Amnesty International, for example, called the police response “disproportionate to the point of absurdity.”
But under UK law, the government’s position is clear.
To be listed as a terrorist group, an organisation doesn’t have to be on the scale of Al-Qaeda or Islamic State – it just has to meet specific criteria: carrying out violence, property damage, or endangering the public in pursuit of a political cause.
And according to security officials, Palestine Action has ticked every box.
Why the Group Was Banned
For years, Palestine Action has admitted to staging attacks and intimidation campaigns against defence contractors and military sites across the UK.
Their goal? To pressure the government into cutting ties with Israel and to disrupt Britain’s arms industry.
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre even linked the group to three distinct terror attacks.
Legal proceedings are already underway, and security experts argue the ban was inevitable.
Free Speech or Criminal Acts?
Here’s where things get complicated. Supporters of Palestine Action insist this is an attack on free speech.
But those arrested weren’t stopped from waving flags, chanting slogans, or marching for Palestinian rights.
They were free to say “Viva Palestina!” as loudly as they wanted.
The problem, critics argue, is that Palestine Action didn’t stop at words.
Instead of speeches and rallies, they chose direct sabotage and threats. That’s what set them apart.
Comparing the Incomparable
One defence often raised is: “But they’re not like ISIS.” True – they don’t commit atrocities on that scale. But that’s not the test.
Other much smaller, obscure groups have been banned under the same laws, such as National Action and the National Socialist Order.
The point isn’t how big or brutal the violence is – it’s whether the group is using violence and intimidation for political ends.
By that definition, Palestine Action fits.
The Sympathy Card
Supporters have also highlighted who is getting arrested – priests, teachers, pensioners.
The implication is that these “respectable” people shouldn’t be treated as criminals. But history doesn’t support that view.
Former teachers and even priests have been convicted of terrorism before. Being well-spoken or elderly doesn’t mean someone is above the law.
The Double Standards Debate
All of this feeds into a wider argument about “two-tier justice.”
After the acquittal of Labour councillor Ricky Jones, social media was filled with claims that certain groups get treated more harshly than others.
But in his case, a jury found him not guilty – a cornerstone of the justice system.
What’s really happening, critics argue, is that affluent, middle-class activists believe their background should shield them from the same laws everyone else faces.
When they break the rules, they call it “principled protest.”
When working-class communities stage legal, peaceful demonstrations – like those against asylum hotels – they’re labelled divisive or even racist.
The Political Angle
Just last week, Amnesty International joined a campaign accusing protestors outside asylum hotels of fueling racism and hate.
The contrast is striking: when middle-class activists break the law, it’s painted as noble resistance; when working-class parents worry about their children’s safety, it’s condemned as bigotry.
That’s why ministers, the article argues, must hold firm.
The issue isn’t just about Gaza or even terrorism – it’s about whether Britain’s legal system applies equally to everyone, regardless of class or cause.
A Willing Martyr
Deborah Hinton says she’s prepared to go to prison for her beliefs.
She and her fellow activists want to be seen as martyrs for Palestine.
The government, it seems, is ready to let them.
Because at the heart of this debate is a simple principle: laws cannot bend depending on who breaks them.
So, what’s next?
This tug of war between free speech, protest rights, and national security isn’t going away anytime soon.
But the message from authorities is clear – cross the line into supporting or promoting a banned group, and no amount of class, status, or sentiment will save you from the consequences.
