Taking ACTION for PALESTINE w/Huda Ammori

Adnan Husain: Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim. Salam, hello, peace to you all. Welcome to the Adnan Hussain Show. I'm Adnan Hussain, host of course, and we have a very special edition of the program today. It's also a special Ramadan edition. So Ramadan Mubarak to everyone. And before getting underway, I also want to remind listeners and viewers that we are, during this month, running a special fundraiser during Ramadan for the Samir Project. In particular, they have a Ramadan Iftar campaign, and I want to encourage everyone if they can, to make a donation and support the Palestinian Mutual Aid Organization that is doing excellent work to help Palestinians in Gaza continue to live and remain on their land in resistance to the brutal occupation and genocide that they've been suffering. So please do check out the Samir Project, and if you can, donate to the Ramadan Iftar program, particularly during this month. And of course, if you have extra, you can always support this channel, Adnan Hussain, the Adnan Hussain Show. You can go to patreon.com slash Adnan Hussain. But I'd much rather during this time and any time that you give to support Palestine. So as I said, this is a really special edition and episode. I'm really delighted to have Huda Amori, co-founder of Palestine Action with me today. Huda, it's wonderful to see you. Welcome. Well, it's nice to see you as well, and especially under positive circumstances. There's been a lot of recent news about successes in legal procedures, the recent judicial review of the high court. We're going to talk a little bit about that. But maybe before we begin with very contemporary and recent developments, it might be useful for my listeners, although many of them are very involved with you know, Palestine solidarity movements around the world to know a little bit more about what is Palestine Action, its approach as a direct action group, and what it had accomplished before the proscription and banning of it in July 2025.

Huda Ammori: Yeah, so Palestine Action, we launched it in 2020 with the aim of taking direct action, mainly against Elbert Systems, Israel's biggest weapons manufacturer. And they had several factories across Britain where they would make weaponry, which was marketed as tested, basil tested on the Palestinian people. and weapons that would be sent over to the Zionist regime to be used to maintain the surveillance of Palestinians in Gaza and to massacre Palestinians on a regular basis. So myself and some others who were Fed up of the political process and the lack of change that was created through traditional means of campaigning, decided to take Dara's action instead. And what this looked like was blockades. We would storm inside of their offices. Albert's office in London, we would occupy their factories and cause damage to their factories as well on a sustained basis. So we did start with a few of us who did a bunch of actions to start it off, but then lots of people kept joining and then doing actions themselves. And what that meant was we could have sustained disruption against the Israeli war machine in Britain, against these focused targets. And that did lead to the closure of several of three Israeli armed sites before prescription. And as well as targeting Albert Systems, we would target any companies or institutions who were associated with Albert Systems, like the landlords, for example, or the suppliers. these different services that are needed for a company to operate and build these weapons. And that led to over a dozen companies cutting ties of Albert Systems altogether. So it was a two-pronged approach where we would target the weapons factories themselves, but also the supply chain. and the companies associated with Elbit Systems in order to isolate Elbit and make it very difficult for them to operate. And we saw over the years how Elbit's profits at certain factories were plummeting. They'd have to spend more on security and they were able to produce less weapons, crucially. And this led to them being more in the red, so to speak, on their accounts and some of their sites having to close down.

Adnan Husain: Yeah, that's amazing. An incredible history of success for direct action sponsored by Palestine Action. And, you know, I think one of the other points to raise here that a lot of people perhaps don't understand, but I witnessed, you know, firsthand when I was in the UK, is that it isn't just the actionists themselves who take the direct action, but that the nature of the campaign is to use and build those kinds of moments to a stronger sense of solidarity by others in the communities that you were working in. And so, you know, that has been a key part of the success. So perhaps it's worth mentioning that in addition to those who take these precise actions, the Palestine Action and its supporters over this period of activity were many people doing many different things in support of those actions. media campaigns, solidarity, work in the community, educating communities where these facilities were held about what was going on in their town and so forth. And so I'm wondering if you could maybe talk about the way in which the actions built a kind of broader sort of campaign that not only had these successes, but also more broadly success for galvanizing solidarity with Palestine.

Huda Ammori: Yeah, definitely. And that's such a crucial point. You know, in some ways, it's quite interesting how Albert systems place themselves in towers of communities, in places that were very supportive of the Palestinian people, and then in turn, very supportive of Palestine Actions campaign against these factories. And oftentimes, you know, for example, in Oldham, this is a town in the north of England. very diverse community huge Muslim community there and when we would take action against the factories people would mobilize around the actions and it would be those people who would then go to the police stations pick people up after they've been released or go to the court cases and support people or provide people with accommodation. So when you see these actions, there is a whole community of people around, which makes that movement sustainable and possible. Another example is Leicester, again, another very diverse community. And I remember in 2021, during the bombing of Gaza in May 2021, Four people were on the roof of an Albert weapons factory in Leicester. And within hours, there were hundreds of people coming out to support those people on the roof of that factory. And that occupation ended up lasting around six days. the fire brigade came in and then refused to assist the police in taking the actionists off the route. And then after six days, when the police tried to arrest them themselves, the community mobilised en masse and actually started blockading the gates, hundreds of them putting their cars in the way of the factory in order to try and stop them from being able to arrest the people on the route. And they actually held that up for several hours. And then when they were finally arrested, about 30 cars followed the police car with the actionists inside to the police station and continued to support them. ever ever since so it's yes we we are very focused on that action but with that we have managed to you know have huge amounts of support from local communities which is essential to being able to continue to do these kind of sustained direct actions against these weapons factories

Adnan Husain: Yes, well, I mean, in the course of that, you also mentioned, of course, arrests and police involvement to protect Elbit Systems and other businesses' properties that are the target of these direct action attacks. direct actions. In addition to the successes in pressuring Elbit Systems and companies that were associated with it, there are of course also challenges associated with legal battles with the arrests of actionists and being charged with a variety of crimes. But there have been also some great successes there in cases where, you know, you've done this kind of outreach and work both outside and inside the courtroom. Juries have seemed to be rather supportive of action on behalf of the Palestinians. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about the character in that first wave of actions of the court cases that proceeded as a result of Palestine Actions activities.

Huda Ammori: Yeah, so our intention always was when or if we were arrested for taking these types of actions, that when we go to the court, we would argue that our actions were necessary and done to prevent a greater crime, which is a defence enshrined in British law. And that would mean when we go into the court, we would stand as the accusers and not the accused and point the finger at other systems and the crimes that they were committing. In some occasions, people have been allowed to rely on that defense. It really depends on the judge. And more often than not, especially after Israeli interference from the Israeli government, they have been removing those defenses. So in that point, when you don't have any defense, the jury is basically asked whether you committed the damage or not. And if you commit the damage, you're guilty. If you didn't, you're not guilty. And obviously, it's pretty obvious that we committed the damage. That was the purpose of us being there. So in those cases, people go up and explain how a jury can still acquit on their conscience. They do not have to convict and explain why what we did was morally justified and should have been legally justified as well, given the crimes that are being committed with these weapons. And... more times than not, that has been successful. Of course, it's not a guarantee. There are cases where people have been found guilty, but it has been successful, especially when you consider the fact that you are really up against it now when you go into court and you are arguing this because judges are more often than not seeking convictions. And so when that doesn't happen, it truly is a testament to the fact that ordinary people, when they truly understand that we are the ones occupying or destroying these factories in order to save lives in Palestine and prevent the much-created crime, They do not see us as the criminals. They see the company as the criminals. And they do, you know, often acquit.

Adnan Husain: Yes. You know, I mean, I think I've seen both some of the other components that you mentioned at a trial I attended in the UK, in the London trial. area where there were two things happening. One is there was a proliferation of charges. It's clear that there was an Elbit or Israeli attaché also in the audience attending, and that there was clearly political pressure being placed, partly because of the fact that juries have been Maybe not all the time, but enough. They've been delivering acquittals or very minimal sentences using their discretion. And that this was becoming a bit of a problem. And this is perhaps also, we might say, what has led to the kind of intervention by the government to... prevent the sort of normal case law and normal jury system under British law to be applied to Palestine action. So perhaps you can tell us a little bit about what happened with the proscription of Palestine action to derail the activities of Palestine action on the one hand, and also the acquittals and the kind of good conscience, you might say, of normal people in understanding what was happening. Once they understood what was happening in Palestine, being largely sympathetic with Palestine action, that led to the prescription officially on July 5th of Palestine action under the Terrorism Act of 2000 by then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.

Huda Ammori: Yeah, so it may be worth explaining just a bit before the prescription. So over the years, the state had tried many different tactics to repress Palestine action, different charges as well. And basically every single time it didn't work in terms of trying to deter Palestine action. I was... near the start of Palestine, actually a couple of years in, I was facing blackmail charges, which was really serious and actually really ridiculous. It was baseless. And they didn't work. We got acquitted of that charge for when we did go to trial. And then they started to, in 2024, they started to use counter-terrorism legislation And at this point, they'd already been using terrorism legislation against just normal protesters for speeches, you know, and say that they were supportive of Hamas, etc. And then they started using it against Palestine Action, where they were actually claiming that actions were in themselves terrorism. And the first time this happened was the Filton case in August 2024. And this was the first time that people who broke into an Albert Reckless factory had been arrested by counterterrorism police and held for up to a week without charge repeatedly interrogated and then remanded only for their child to be about a year and a half after their actual action. And normally you're not allowed to be remanded for more than six months before you have a child because you're not convicted of anything. But because of the use of terrorism legislation, it made it easier for them to crack down on these people. And that was clearly as well a reaction to the fact that when people go to court, they might get acquitted. And then, you know, we'll never get to punish them. So instead, they use the process as the punishment against these actionists. And so there was, they started to use counterterrorism powers, but prescription was a whole, you know, different, different thing altogether. And we first heard about that in June. And I remember it was, it was the day of the action at, um, at Bryce Norton, which I have to say is one of my favorite actions. So, you know, even if it led to all of this, it wasn't actually down to that latitude and was down to previous things. But it was all over the news, this action.

Adnan Husain: And you could just describe for people who aren't familiar with all the details of this action, especially since, as you say, it was a very profoundly important one.

Huda Ammori: So what happened was two people used e-scooters to get onto a military base and they targeted these military jets at RAF Bries Norton from the site where they often send the surveillance flights to go and fly to Akrotiri, RAF Akrotiri, which are then used to surveil Gaza. And there's lots of reports about how this is surveilling Palestinians in Gaza during the genocide and then sharing that intelligence with the Israeli military. So directly being involved in the genocide. And so the clear aim of this action was to prevent that from happening. And so that's what they did. They went up to these planes, they used fire extinguishers to spray into the turbo engines of two planes, and then they scooted away. And when the accident came out in the morning, it was all over the news. And actually, I remember at the time thinking, this is the first time I've seen mainstream news report about military, the RAF's role in the genocide in Gaza. It was everywhere. And then around lunchtime, There was a certain direction in terms of the commentary where people said, well, hold on, someone needs to be fired for this because how can you have such bad security and a military base in Britain? And then a few hours later, it's announced that Palestine actually is going to be prescribed as a terrorist organization. And that's when it kind of all began at that point. And so I think we had about two... It was June 20th, I believe, the action was. So we had about two and a half, three weeks before the prescription actually ended up going through from that point onwards because she had made a public announcement. And yeah, so that's when we first found out about the prescription.

Adnan Husain: Yeah, just to go back a little bit, I mean, firstly, I would recommend everybody go check out Matt Kennard's reporting, investigative reporting for background on the information that establishes the use of the Akrotiri RAF base for surveillance flights and possible use of those surveillance surveys over Gaza for Israeli targeting of Palestinians in Gaza and the fact that this Bryce Norton base was part of that kind of military system of the British military that was complicit in the genocide. So go check out that wonderful reporting. But also your point that there had not been any reporting besides people like Matt Kennard really talking about serious complicity, not just in the broad kind of political sense that they weren't opposing, you know, in the UN and so on, but actual military complicity was something that was not being reported in any mainstream British media. But it took... And this is the value, in some ways, one might say, of the kinds of direct action that Palestine Action was involved in. It took an episode like that to require an explanation, you know, it raised all of these questions. And that's the context in which the British public finally began to learn about these details in a broader way so that's a very important dimension of the direct action is that they may be these particular moments but what they produce is a political effect that breaks through the other kind of blocks and barriers of conventional journalism conventional activism can't break through it. But what I want to ask you is about the response and reaction as a result of this, how the British media talked about it. Also, we know, of course, that there have been ongoing many protests in solidarity with Palestine action. 2,700 people or so have been arrested and Approximately 700 of those have actually been charged under the Terrorism Act, although there haven't been any actual convictions up to this point. But it wasn't, as I recall, being online and seeing these discussions, as I recall at the time, Not everybody who is avowedly pro-Palestinian was aggressive in talking about what a travesty it was that Palestine action was being classified under this as a terrorist organization and being prescribed under this act. It took some effort to build the solidarity movement that led to these protests, arrests, and the backing for the judicial review that will talk about in a moment. But maybe you can talk a little bit about the politics of that moment and what the struggles and challenges were to bring people together in a frame of resistance rather than be absolutely cowed and intimidated by this extremely aggressive move, unprecedented move by the British government.

Huda Ammori: Yeah, great question. So at that point, Everything is moving extremely quickly as well. So, you know, you have two or three weeks before prescription. And at the same time, you're kind of in disbelief. So you think somebody is going to stop this, right? Or you're just looking at the next couple of days and seeing what you can do and operating within the space where you have this very short time period before you are officially prescribed. At that same time, I was trying to stop it legally. And I'll probably go on to talk about that. But I remember that in the first couple of days, it didn't feel like we had the narrative at all after the announcements. And, you know, you just get this onslaught and we still get the onslaught. And bear in mind, before this point, like, Palestine Action, we had just been relatively quietly shutting down all the systems of wreaking havoc for the Israeli war machine. And suddenly, everyone's talking about, everyone's talking about it, and they're not necessarily getting it correct either. You know, people, I still don't believe that the, maybe now, but the majority of people actually fully understand what Palestine Action's aims were and what we were doing before this incident. prescription came into place because of how much you kind of lose the narrative very quickly because it's dominated by ministers politicians who go all over the TV channels and it's about all this nonsense about you and at the same time we had a lot of people defending us which I was pleasantly surprised to see that because we never had mainstream support, not even in the Palestine movement necessarily. We had a lot of grassroots support. We had a lot of community support, but we didn't enjoy support from the mainstream organizations. And so there was a lot of different forms of support during that time period and a lot of I would say there was a mood where people did want to defy the prescription, even before it came in. A lot of people were saying, you know, I think it was Sally Rooney had come out of an article a few days in and said, I will support Palace of Action no matter what. And that was in The Guardian. And, you know, she's absolutely brilliant. But then I think it kind of snowballed where a lot of people started saying, Discussing it or thinking, I really disagree with this. I can't believe I'm not going to be able to say something in a couple of weeks about policy election. So there was this mood created before the ban had come into force. And then defendant juries were the ones who kind of took that on. And it was literally the day after election. The day of prescription, so it was a Friday, it was the last day before the Saturday, and we were prescribed at midnight on Friday. And so on the Saturday, they had these different people from different walks of life holding these signs and getting arrested. And, you know, I remember seeing that everywhere. And then it kind of just snowballed again, where it became hundreds of people and then more hundreds of people and then 900 people sitting in Parliament Square and holding these signs. And so it created a huge moment of resistance and civil disobedience in reaction to the ban. And, you know, whilst Palestine Action... It's about direct action, has always been, and focus on the Israeli weapons factories. Civil disobedience is still a very powerful tool that can be engaged, especially in a moment like this when there is an unjust law. And in order to fight against an unjust law, the best way to do it is to break it en masse. And so it was a very simple concept that spread everywhere. That's read very widely. And then seeing just how people are getting mass arrested for holding up pieces of paper showed how absurd the whole thing is, exposed it. And it's backfired now in the state's face, where actually all they've done is undermine their own terrorism legislation. Terrorism legislation is supposed to be used as a way of installing fear into the general public. It's a crushed dissent. And instead it empowered people to get out there and resist it. So they didn't get what they wanted out of this band.

Adnan Husain: Yes. I mean, I think, in fact, they were clearly taken aback that many people decided to defy the ban and show public support for Palestine action in numbers that they were really not prepared to deal with and process. You know, it's clear that they were confused and unprepared for that. Which I think is a testimony to a couple of things. One, the severity of the genocide and how frustrated so many people are with the complicity of their own governments, the inaction, and also the failures to produce large-scale change by the mass demonstrations that took place. I mean, I was in the UK during this period. And every two weeks, there was a national march that had anywhere between 250 to 750,000, sometimes even a million or more were in the streets of London. And yet there was by both Labour and Conservative Party leaders, and we've seen no change, even with the change of government, under Rishi Sunak's administration versus Keir Starmer's really hasn't been substantively different, that the frustration that people have had with these techniques led people to, even if they themselves hadn't ever contemplated doing direct action were so outraged at the prevention and criminalization in a particular way under the Terrorism Act to prevent people even organizing around trying to do something different other than just have these kind of weekly, you know, bimonthly kind of shows of support that weren't themselves leading to change led galvanized people to to support Palestine action in a way that perhaps they never, never would have. And also the fact that so many of these people were like elderly or even people in wheelchairs and so on with the brutal kind of treatment by the state, it just provided a perfect contrast to show, you know, what were the real values of, of, of the state that, you know, if they can treat their citizens like this, no wonder their, their, you know, unwilling to do something about supporting Israel's genocide in Gaza. And that, you know, some of the outcomes, I guess I'm interested if you're feeling that as a result of this, this has changed some of the political calculus, you know, in the British public when it comes to deference to the government's government on foreign policy type questions and so forth.

Huda Ammori: Yeah, it definitely has. And these aren't people who would... Many of whom, probably the majority, had never been arrested before. Some of whom, probably a lot of them, were the ones who would donate to Palestine Action beforehand or come to the court cases. And they were often the people who would say, I can't do it myself. I can't get on a roof. I'll support you how I can. And this ignited something in so many people. And I think because of how simple it was to hold the sign as well. that people en masse started to resist. And then once you start to resist, you understand the power of assistance and you understand that that's not just a momentary thing. It can happen again and again and again. And also, I think when you yourself go through... where you're being arrested for holding a son. You're being held under terrorism legislation or arrested for terrorism legislation. The absurdity of the situation. And it makes you question everything, I would think. And not just those people who did it, but the people who are watching it. And I think it forced the British state into a position where they had to be very obvious that they would rather protect children a foreign genocidal regime and its weapons manufacturers over the freedoms of its own citizens. And they showed that to the whole country and to the whole world where their priorities lied and people were disgusted by it. And so I think we are at a point where more than ever before, people are very aware of the... of the British government's role with the Zionist regime, not just the role, the influence that the Zionist regime has over Britain and its alignment with the imperialist policies and the fact that they as citizens... do not matter. They are secondary, if not last, to their first priority, which is to protect the imperialist interests, to protect the Zionist regime. And if you have to get arrested en masse, in order to process that, they will happily arrest you all. I mean, I always say happily, it was a big challenge for them to actually do that. But they did have to expose themselves. Maybe it was a subtle before and a lot of us knew, don't get me wrong, but not to the same extent. And at the same time, as all this is happening, people are seeing the genocide in Gaza every single day. And so I think it's really, it's created a political awakening across Britain.

Adnan Husain: Yeah. You know, something else I want to mention before we talk about the judicial review outcome of the suit that you launched is that also at the same time that this is happening outside in the streets, many of the actionists, especially the Filton 24, began a campaign of hunger striking. And this was something also that was very important during this period and also, I feel, did not get in the mainstream, either the mainstream media attention, but even in the mainstream Palestine solidarity movements. in the West, certainly in the US and possibly also in the UK, quite the attention that it deserved. And also there was a lot of solidarity. But, you know, it was also, again, something that had a politics around it, that part of the respectable Palestine mainstream movements, again, were somewhat cautious about how they wanted to support or talk about this question. Perhaps you could tell us a little bit about how the hunger striking campaign began, what it was in response to in particular, and know um you know what sorts of successes and challenges this tactic you know brought up um you know for those who are struggling um to end complicity with genocide in the uk and and elsewhere so i think for for context some of whom i think for four of the homie strikers were from the philton 24

Huda Ammori: group and four were from the Briars Norton group, so people who were arrested subsequent to the Briars Norton action, again by counter-terrorism police. And it's worth noting, Bryce Norton, that there have been other actions, furious actions during the Iraq war at military bases, which were much more radical. And there's never been involvement by counterterrorism police. So the difference is here, it was for Palestine. So for the Filton 24, at this point, many of them had applied for bail numerous times. Their trials were either 15, actually 18 months after they'd been arrested. Some was nearly two years they were facing until they would get to trial. And they were facing very, very serious charges. They're still facing charges, just a lot less serious charges. still serious, but a lot less serious because of how serious aggravated burglary was, I'd say. So aggravated burglary was maximum life in prison. And so it was a very... What they're facing is they're facing being called terrorists at this point. They're facing years and years, over a decade potentially, in prison. And even though many of them are remanded before a prescription, their treatment had significantly worsened after prescription. They were being labelled as terrorists. The guards were telling other prisoners not to associate with them because they are terrorists. They were restricted in terms of what they could have in their cells. One person couldn't even have a crayon in her cell where you spend a lot of your time. Just these things which... It may seem small to us, or I can't have a career, but when you are in prison, locked up every single day, and they're not even allowed books, certain books. They can't have political books. They couldn't have a book on Gaza or feminism because they were being treated as terrorists and sad. So there is that side to it. But also, to be fair to them, they were insistent on making Palestine the center of their hunger strike. and wanting to be able to continue to resist the genocide and to resist in solidarity with Palestinians whilst they were locked away and inside. And so the hunger strike had launched, I think it's only a couple of them, and more had subsequently joined. And this is really a last form of resistance that you can use in Britain when everything is taken away from you. The only power you have is over your own body. And, you know, you're kind of weaponizing that against the state. And so many of them are on holy shark for over two months. Some of them still face health issues. Inshallah, they shouldn't be permanent, they should be reversible, but they are still suffering from health issues as a result of their hunger strikes. The media was very interesting also. maybe interesting isn't the right word, but it was extremely frustrating because when you saw the Irish from the Sharks back in the 1980s, it was all over the media every single day. And for these lot, it was only around... 40 days in, that the mainstream media started to pick it up. And, you know, when that hunger strike is happening, the media is really imperative for the success of that hunger strike. And, and they weren't picking it up at that point onwards there was more and more coverage um throughout about the hunger strike and they and they did you know manage to reach huge audiences towards the end um of their hunger strike but you know at the consequence of their own of their own health in the end they did manage to um you know they did manage to secure some of their demands and so they they ended it just i think the last one was just early early um And for some of them, it was, you know, they nearly died. And it does show just how committed... these people are to, to the Palestinian cause and to the fight for freedom, but also what kinds of, um, you know, how far can you push someone when they are able to, to, to do a hunger strike for, for that, for that long. Um, thankfully now, so one of their demands was the prescription of Palestine action. And, um, Yeah, I'll go on to talk about that. But thankfully now we actually had some successes with the Filton 24 case. So the first ones who went on trial were found not guilty of aggravated burglary, which means now all of the Filton 24 have been acquitted of that really serious charge. So we are hopeful that in the next, you know, In the next few days or weeks, all of the 24 will walk, including the hunger strikers.

Adnan Husain: Yes, inshallah. I mean, a lot of good news coming out about that case, especially that aggravated burglary charge, as you mentioned. But other good news has been the judicial review. The three-judge panel of the high court ruled that the prescription of Palestine action in July 2025 was unlawful. And so perhaps you can tell us a little bit about the legal appeal and review that your suit caused and what the kind of key issues have been. I understand that there were four grounds on which your case objected to the legality of the prescription order and that two of them were upheld. Let us know here about how did this start and what do you think about the judgment and the case?

Huda Ammori: Yeah. So it started actually probably instantly. I think the first legal meeting I had was a couple of days after the announcement of the Rett Cooper's prescription back in June. And the first... The first step was to try and get interim relief, which meant that the prescription wasn't coming to effect. And, you know, we were relatively hopeful that that would work. But all of this is completely unprecedented. And I remember it was it was in court the day before. So we were going to be prescribed on Friday at midnight. We were in court in the day. And we lost the interim relief. And then we appealed at the court of PRB. We had lost that. So that meant that we were going to be prescribed at midnight. But the legal challenge has continued. And so at first we had applied for commission to take out a full legal challenge. And. Without being too technical, this was actually the first time that any prescribed group had been successful in challenging a prescription in this way. Because the only other process that you can do is... After you're prescribed, you can say, we have now changed the nature of this group and we want you to be prescribers. And if they don't, you can appeal that decision. It's never happened where you could appeal the actual decision to prescribe. So we were successful. And originally we went in with eight rounds. including the fact that it was improper purpose, that there was an improper purpose of the Terrorism Act, that none of this amounted to terrorism, and several other points. The main points that actually stuck were the proportionality. This was disproportionate interference with human rights, namely the right to free speech and the right to protest. So that was one of the... were the most important points. And that ended up being what we had won in this ruling. So we have gone through quite a process and the government has been appealing us at every step before we got to this final judicial review ruling. Because when we had one permission and one certain grounds, the government appealed us to the court of appeal to try and stop us from even being able to legally challenge this. We had won that, and in the process, because we cross-appealed, we won two more grounds. So it was actually backfiring, their attempts to stop this legal challenge, and we were gaining steam throughout the process. And it ends up happening in November. It was supposed to happen in September, but the state used whatever tactics to delay it from taking place. And... Actually, a week before the judicial review, we had been hearing the case in front of one judge who was all right. You know, there's no such thing as a pro-Palestine judge or activist judge, no matter what the former would say. There's no such thing as that in Britain. But he wasn't, you know, he was fair. And he was removed off the case a week before and three very establishment, well, they're all establishment, but three very pro-government judges who had very questionable links to things associated with the Israel lobby had been instated. And at that point, you know, it's a very frustrating position because you're almost questioning if you've lost before you've even had a chance.

Adnan Husain: Yeah.

Huda Ammori: And then, as you probably know, and then on Friday, we got the results and we actually had one on two grounds. And in the ruling, they had proposed, these judges proposed that the order be quashed since its inception. which means that it was always illegal. It was always unlawful, and it would be like it never happened in legal terms. I'm sure we're not going to forget that this ever happened, but in legal terms, it's like it never happened. So that's what they have proposed to happen. So it was a huge victory, and we won on a very important ground, which was the free speech ground. And the reason that was so important is some of the other points were procedural. which meant that it wouldn't have been difficult for the state to go, OK, we didn't follow the correct procedure. We'll follow the correct procedure next time and then we'll prescribe you. It was probably, you know, and that's what I felt, if we were going to win, maybe that's the most likely one because of the predicament we found ourselves in. But we won on the ground, which makes it very, very difficult, if not impossible, for them to prescribe Palestine Action in the future because it would still be an interference with human rights. to do so because of the nature of what Palestine Action or Palestine Action is. So that's where we landed on Friday. And because it's been ruled unlawful, you would expect that the banner would be lifted straight away. I mean, at least that's what I wanted. I'm sure everyone else did. But there's just been a slight delay, so we have a hearing coming up that's not scheduled yet where we will be arguing about the order. So the judges have ordered for it to be quashed. The state will be applying for the quashing order to be suspended pending an appeal. We will be arguing the opposite because we know now that the state wants to appeal the judgment.

Adnan Husain: Right. So what that would mean is that there are two sort of different steps. One is a hearing to determine whether the quashing ruling to suppress it and say it never really happened in legal terms will be upheld and whether the government will be forced to kind of evacuate everybody's sentences and You know, kind of, you know, I don't know if they'll ever apologize for the mistake for, you know, incarcerating all these people for holding up a sign. But that's one thing. But then, of course, they also want to appeal and take to the next level the basis of the judgment itself. And that's something that would happen. later on. But given that they're planning and intending to do that, I wonder if that maybe helps the interim quashing, you know, possibilities. Like if they hadn't, you know, been trying to appeal, would that have changed or affected anything about the interpretation of this ruling? I don't know if that's a very important point, but I mean, I think everybody was hoping, just as you said, that once they make this judgment and ruling that It would have to be applied by the government.

Huda Ammori: Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think that it was one of those where actually, whatever the outcome of this ruling, there was always going to be this kind of limbo period. And actually, it's important for people to know, I mean, they may buy tomorrow. they haven't actually submitted an appeal. And we're getting really used to this, where the state tell you what they're planning to do in court by telling the media before they actually tell the parties in the case. So that actually hasn't been submitted yet. So we would have been in this predicament either way. If we had lost, well, we weren't going to get deprescribed. But however we won... because of the kind of limbo period before they get decided to appeal, there would have been this kind of time period where we have to wait for the next stage. I do think the state is going to, they are going to appeal, I'm sure, of that. But the thing is with this is that it's never happened before. So no one actually can be like, you know, this is going to happen or this is going to happen at this point. But what you would, what my lawyers are quite hopeful is that one, this has been ruled unlawful. which means right now the prescription is kind of redundant in a certain way. You know, there were people outside the court on the Friday when this ruling came down with the signs. They weren't being arrested. The police were gathering evidence, you know, in case they won in the future, but no one was being arrested. So there is... It's very strange to be in this kind of position where it's unlawful, yet the prescription is still... in place, and these are the arguments that we're going to be bringing forward in the next couple of weeks about just how do people this affects, how the interference in human rights continues if you do not lift this ban. We know there's a breach of human rights. It's extremely difficult for a court to allow that to happen knowingly on the back of their own ruling when they've said we should be quashed to allow for that to be paused while the state tries to at least appeal appeal this judgment so it is um it's all very unprecedented and you know when i talk to my pharisees they're brilliant brilliant legal team but um often this is the first time i've done any of this because there's just never been a prescription of a terrorist group which has been you know a so-called terrorist group which has been able to be challenged through a judicial review and then now we're at a point where it's unlawful and all these people are still maybe your court cases have been suspended So this time period is going to cause a lot of chaos in the courts. They have to suspend that. They can't bring people to court for charges which are based on unlawful law. But the state seems to be just trying to double down in order to, I don't know, defend their position. Yeah. ethically to the public obviously this is not the result they wanted because people were already criticizing these mass arrests already criticizing the ban and then the public found out that all of those arrests were unlawful and that the home secretary didn't follow her own policy when deciding to prescribe plus on action it's highly highly embarrassing for the um for the state to be in this position, I would have thought the graceful thing to do would be, you know, the high court's giving you a way out. Let it be. But, you know, Shabana Mahmood is a very graceful.

Adnan Husain: Yeah, well, that's what I was, you know, thinking is that the worst, this is, regardless of the legal situation and where it goes, because it's so unprecedented as you're pointing out, firstly, that's already an incredible victory. That is a massive political victory. How it was achieved, I think a lot of people mistake that it is, and think of the courts and law, because of course this is how the state's legal apparatus works. um you know have this pers that obfuscates you know the political character of these processes and decisions think that it's all about the arguments that are made and yes it is you know in many respects but it's also about the political context in which these decisions are being made and everything you've been saying about The unpopularity of such a massive show of force against average citizens who are expressing a political viewpoint has boomeranged back upon the government. And it's in that context that you have to see this as a major political victory. You know, you would think, you know, that instead of worsening the political defeat, they would try and find a way to minimize the damage. But instead, the home secretary, who is a new different home secretary than the one who made this decision, which is, again, another way out to say, yes, well, there were mistakes. or just be quiet about it and accept the ruling. But instead, they've come out aggressively, Shabana Mahmood saying they're very disappointed, they're going to appeal, and so on. In the face of rank unpopularity, of negative legal decision, I mean, in some ways, it shows how willing and committed the government is to This kind of policy of complicity and genocide, you know, fundamentally, that's what they're what they're showing, even to their own political detriment. Right. You know, you might have more to say about the kind of political ramifications, but I did also want to say that because this is such unclear territory, there have also been a lot of people who are, you know, in the Palestine solidarity movement who have expressed caution. I mean, I see this as a big political victory, but there have been a lot of people who have read the ruling to emphasize the transient or limited you know, nature of the victory, what are they saying and what is your response and your analysis, you know, about this kind of question?

Huda Ammori: Yeah, so there's been some commentary that the ruling was made in a way that would make it easily appealable and different points along that nature. I say, I'll take each point. on that point. To me, that's just not a... It's not a theory that makes sense to me. Because, one, high court judges, any judge, does not want to be appealed. They will not make a decision in the quest to be appealed. But, two, this was a huge victory, as you said, for the movement. They will not give that to us just because of a long-term plan to take it away from us later on. Highly embarrassing for the state. At a point when the British government is, you know... in scandals, right? That's not... So I'm not convinced on that theory at all. I don't think it has legs. And I understand the thinking behind it because I am also very sceptical and, you know, I was very... When I heard about these judges and about their links and everything else, you know, there were it would have been just as easy to rule against us. And that would have been what would have been what the state wanted to happen. And then we would be forced to repeal. But it would give some sort of legitimacy to calling us terrorists. and or even if we want to win on a procedural ground like i mentioned before which wasn't as strong and would have made our situation more tenuous even if the government didn't appeal because they may not appeal at that point and go okay we didn't follow the procedure we're going to do that now and we're going to prescribe you again and we would have been really stuck at that point so to win on in this way on these grounds was was huge in and of itself It is worth celebrating. And I'll make that point. And, you know, I know people are well-meaning, but I do not profess. I actually did do a conversion law degree a couple of years ago, but I do not profess to be an expert in the law. I do not profess to be a barrister or have the knowledge of my barristers or understand that. And so I can understand making a political judgment based on a legal judgment. But, you know, the question about how narrow or wide this is or how appealable it is, you know, the advice I've got is that we're in a very strong position and librarians would never once said to me something just to keep me happy. You know, they're very realistic with me at every single point in this process. So I want people to know that. I want people to understand the situation I'm in. Yes, the government's going to appeal. Nothing is guaranteed in this process, but this was a huge victory in and of itself. And in the next process, of course, nothing is guaranteed, but we are in a strong position and we will fight this the whole way. And, you know, we are looking to try and get deprescribed in the next couple of weeks, hopefully. And if not, it will be in the next few months. But I'm certain, you know, that this is going to happen. We had a very strong ruling. And the fact that it came from these judges... There was no one else. There's no one more pro-government than the judges we were in front of, right? There was no one, you know, one who we'd be nervous to have this case in front of than these judges. So if we won in front of them, we're going to be all right in the future. And as you said, this really was won by the politics. Another point that's been made, is that in the judgment they said that we are not considering the people who held the signs as part of the reason for being interference with free speech. But what people omit is that in the earlier cases, the only reason we were allowed a judicial review was in large part because of the hundreds of people who had outstanding cases where they said we need it to be challenged in this way to show that it was unlawful because so many people are affected. So we wouldn't have even got, and that's backed in the legal judgment, to that point without those people. But also I'm not surprised that in the end the judges are not saying anything It's because thousands of people came outside and did all of this because that would just empower the idea of civil disobedience. This is still political, right? And there is a lot in there where they are very scathing of Palestine action. And my opinion on that is I couldn't care less if they were scaring me or Palestine Action. I take it as a compliment that they do not like Palestine Action because this is the establishment, right? We're not seeking their approval. But I respect the fact that they understood that we are not a terrorist organization. So it's not a glowing judgment. And I think a glowing judgment or one that was maybe slightly more sympathetic would have been much more easy to appeal actually in the long run. Another point that's been made is that In the judgment, they said that there had been three instances by Palestine Action which could be classified as terrorism and that they claim it didn't challenge this. It's not actually true. We did challenge it. It's just we weren't allowed on that ground in the end. And we did still challenge that concept. So even if the judges say it doesn't mean that's what happened. And the reason they're saying that is because according to the definition, of terrorism, serious property damage can fall under being a terrorist incident. That is wrong in and of itself. But when we're going into this case to fight against our prescription, we're fighting against the confines of the law, right? So you're arguing already on a strained basis to say, Fine, that might be the definition, but this is why we're not a terrorist organization. And it's important for people more widely to know, when they see terrorism incidents, not a single one of those cases has gone to trial. And actually, sorry, they had gone to trial. But in two incidents, the first one that they mentioned, They never charged them with terrorism. Terrorism was never mentioned. The second one, they did go to trial. It was a voting case, not a single conviction. They were convicted of anything. Third one is yet to go to trial. So they are discussing, talking about property damage against the Israeli weapons trade, against Israeli weapons, and that they said could technically fall under the definition of terrorism. And they're not, you know... And that is correct in the sense that there was serious property damage. I would still argue against that categorization, but we are heavily restricted by the Terrorism Act, which I think is being brought into disrepute in a lot of ways. I think this is one of their cases that has really called the whole thing into question.

Adnan Husain: Yes. Well, I mean, I thank you so much for giving that context and analysis. It's so helpful to position it in and to recognize that they wouldn't have done this if they didn't feel like they were forced to. And so to me, the big lesson here is that we're in this limbo period. There will also be an appeal, apparently, although that also could change. Like they've said that they're going to appeal, but as you point out, they haven't actually filed an appeal, if it proves so incredibly unpopular, the idea of contesting this, if there's political organizing and action that celebrates and makes sort of almost as it were the political fact of the defeat palpable and present to the government that, you know, there's even a chance they won't appeal. But even if they do appeal, it will be very difficult to reverse it. They will do dramatic political damage. going out of their way to try and overcome this initial judicial review's conclusion so however you look at it there's political value to what has been achieved that should be recognized and understood and it should be built upon like this is not the time to sit down and be passive about the judicial process, oh, now we'll have to wait to see if there's an appeal or if it's, this is the time for more organizing around it. I mean, emboldened by and encouraged by the fact that obviously there have been victories here. We could have many more. Let's pursue them. So anyway, I guess that's sort of my final question is, and you've been so generous with your time. We really appreciate you giving generously to inform people of this analysis. But, you know, what thoughts do you have now about the directions that Palestine action might be able to take? What are the kind of, you know, we've mentioned some of the techniques, we've talked about peaceful protests, you know, and what those... You've talked about kind of community organizing and solidarity with actual actions, civil disobedience. I mean, these are all components of a multifaceted sort of struggle. We haven't talked about like BDS and where that's going in this in this era. But I'm wondering if you have any sort of final thoughts as somebody who's been so involved both in Palestine action, but broadly in the Palestine solidarity cause. You know, what are the directions? What should we be thinking about as a movement now to be more successful in stopping this genocide and making a dent? You know, what sort of reflections do you have now at this moment going forward for the movement?

Huda Ammori: Yeah, I mean, I think one of the consequences of this ban has been that it has popularized direct action in reality, but also the idea of it and the support for it across the board. And there have been actions against weapons factories, Albert systems that have continued, not necessarily under the banner of Palestine Action, but have continued in Britain. And actually, Palestine Action globally has grown significantly, I believe, for decades. There's past action groups in over 20 countries currently. And a lot of that has been because of the increased awareness of the idea, tactic and effectiveness of direct action. So I would encourage people to look into that wherever they are. And it's been proven to be a very effective tactic. And I think we're at a point now in the movement where we're witnessing the genocide continue. we have gone through all of the different tactics, whether individually or as a movement, and we're able to actually correctly analyze what has worked, what has led to victories, what has, you know, caused the dead in the Israeli war machine, and what hasn't worked, and to be able to change our approach accordingly. And, you know, with direct action, it's one of those where I don't think a whole movement is going to take part in direct action, but as you said, It takes some people, hopefully a significant number of them, to engage in direct action. And then a whole community of people around them who are supporting it, who are backing it up, who are defending it, who are providing support to those people. And so I think we need to see ourselves in resistance against the Israeli war machine, in resistance against Zionism and how it manifests in the West, and to be able to effectively target that wherever we are.

Adnan Husain: Yes, well, these are wonderful concluding words, and I hope all of my listeners take this to heart. It's a message that's very important. We've all gone to all these protests, but change hasn't come, so we have to adapt and learn from our own movement. I think also in this conversation, it's been really important to highlight the sacrifices of heroic, courageous people, not only for the actions they've taken, but then the resistance within the carceral institutions in prison going on hunger strike. This is, you know, really reviewed what are inspirational moments. models for us. And so I want to thank you so much, Huda, for taking time to tell us about it, for the work that you've done as a co-founder of Palestine Action, as an actionist, as somebody resisting within the legal system for the judicial review. It's so meaningful and inspiring to so many people, and we really appreciate all that you're doing with your colleagues and with your community. So thank you for the work that you do and for coming and telling us about it to inspire others to follow the same model. Listeners, again, I just want to conclude by saying Ramadan Mubarak to all of you, and please do support the Samir Project Ramadan Iftar campaign during this month. It's a special opportunity to do something for Palestinians in Gaza to help them stay resistant on their land until victory. Inshallah. So peace with justice and solidarity to you all.

Huda Ammori: Inshallah.