The United Kingdom Court of Appeal has supported the government's decision to label the activist group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, overturning a previous decision made by the High Court.

英國上訴法院支持政府將行動主義組織「巴勒斯坦行動」列為恐怖組織的決定，推翻了先前高等法院的裁決。

The court's decision confirms that the Home Secretary has the power to make decisions based on national security. The court asserted that the group's activities, such as destroying property and disrupting defense companies, go beyond peaceful protest. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood emphasized that the organization promotes violence and does not follow democratic values. Consequently, the group is now in the same legal category as international militant groups, which means that supporting them is a criminal offense. This has already led to approximately 3,000 arrests.

法院的決定確認內政大臣有權基於國家安全做出決定。法院斷言該組織的活動，例如破壞財產和擾亂國防公司，已超出和平抗議的範圍。內政大臣 Shabana Mahmood 強調，該組織宣揚暴力且不遵循民主價值。因此，該組織目前與國際激進組織處於相同的法律類別，這意味著支持他們是一種刑事犯罪。這已導致約 3,000 人被捕。

This ruling is part of a larger trend in how the British government handles protest movements. In the past, the state's reaction to disruptive activism varied, but recent laws, such as the Public Order Act 2023, have given police more power and increased penalties for public disturbances. Furthermore, research from Queen Mary University of London shows that activists are now receiving longer prison sentences, and judges are limiting how much political motivation can be discussed during trials.

這項裁決是英國政府處理抗議運動之大趨勢的一部分。過去，國家對擾亂性行動的反應各異，但近期法律（如 2023 年《公共秩序法》）賦予了警方更多權力，並加重了對公共騷亂的處罰。此外，倫敦瑪麗女王大學的研究顯示，行動主義者目前的刑期更長，且法官限制了在審判期間討論政治動機的程度。

Opinions on this issue remain divided. Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, argue that using anti-terrorism laws against protesters weakens human rights protections. For example, in the 'Filton Four' case, defendants received harsher sentences because of a 'terrorist connection' that was not explained to the jury. However, the government maintains that there is a clear difference between legal political expression and supporting banned organizations, asserting that these measures are necessary for public safety.

對此議題的看法仍存在分歧。包括人權觀察在內的人權組織認為，將反恐法用於抗議者會削弱人權保障。例如在「費爾頓四人組」案中，被告因未向陪審團解釋清楚的「恐怖主義聯繫」而受到更嚴厲的判刑。然而，政府堅持合法的政治表達與支持禁令組織之間有明顯區別，並聲明這些措施對於公共安全是必要的。

The ban remains in place, although co-founder Huda Ammori has stated that she intends to take the legal challenge to the Supreme Court and possibly the European Court of Human Rights.

禁令維持生效，儘管共同創辦人 Huda Ammori 表示她打算將法律挑戰提交至最高法院，以及可能的歐洲人權法院。