Solidarity in pursuit of justice: art and dissent
The Long View loves street art, and Banksy – and most of all, this week’s contribution to the walls of the Royal Court of Justice, in London.
Banksy’s newest work shows a judge, in a traditional wig and gown, using a gavel to strike a protestor lying on the ground below him, holding up a blood-spattered placard. It appeared a day after the Met Police arrested nearly 900 people at Parliament Square protesting in support of the proscribed group Palestine Action.
🗣️ Defend Our Juries, who organised the protest, made this statement: “Among the 857 arrestees were vicars and priests, war veterans and descendants of Holocaust survivors, retired teachers and healthcare workers,” and accused the police of making “many false claims” to justify arresting peaceful demonstrators with signs that read: “I oppose genocide – I support Palestine Action.”
🗣️ Speaking for the Met Police, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Claire Smart, issued this statement: “You can express your support for a cause without committing an offence under the Terrorism Act ... we have a duty to enforce the law without fear or favour. If you advertise that you are intending to commit a crime, we have no option but to respond accordingly.”
But what if, (hypothetically) all possible ways of expressing your support for a cause become an offence under the Terrorism Act?
“But that could never happen,” you might protest.
How certain are you? And what exactly do you know about the process for proscribing an organisation as a terrorist group under the Terrorism Act 2000 – an act that was widely criticised when passed as putting forward too broad a definition of “terrorism” and too few mechanisms for holding the state to account for abuse of those powers?
🧑🏻⚖️ You be the judge:
- Here is the explanatory memorandum prepared by the UK Home Office and laid before Parliament, with the draft order for proscription of Palestine Action (PA), alongside two other organisations: Maniacs Murder Cult (MMC) and Russian Imperial Movement (RIM).
- Here is the debate in UK Parliament on 2 July 2025, during which MPs raised concerns and sought to differentiate the severity of the evidence with respect to PA as compared to MMC and RIM, and requested the option of voting separately on proscription of each organisation. Dan Jarvis, Minister of State for Security, refused, citing both precedent (this is the way we’ve always done it) and neutrality (refusing to unbundle possibly randomly bundled orders for proscription, somehow demonstrates that we are ideologically neutral).
- Neutrality is, of course, a fiction in matters of politics. And here, finally, is the list of the 385 MPs who voted in favour of proscription, and the 20 MPs who voted against.
The process of criminalising behaviour, and of making your actions – however right or just or private or justifiable you think they might be – illegal, is in most cases, quite clear.
👮🏻But once your behaviour is criminalised, enforcement against you is backed by the full powers of the state.
🤔 The question that a human rights lawyer would ask – and that you should ask yourself (and keep asking yourself) is:
If this law were used against me, in circumstances where I feel I have acted reasonably, and my opponents have acted abusively, would the outcome be fair?
If you feel the answer is “no,” whether or not the law directly affects you today, consider whether – out of self interest, or solidarity – you should nevertheless do something to oppose, or reform, it.
✏️ For the record:
- The punishment for supporting a group proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, like Palestine Action, is up to a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment, or an unlimited fine.
- The punishment for criminal damage – what Banksy’s latest work is being investigated as – is a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
- The punishment for supporting a group that actually commits genocide…this is harder to calculate…for those of you reading this article who are criminal law experts, I’m all ears? 🤔
Some final thoughts
This is a picture of the site of Banky’s work a few days later: a foreboding shadow, after the fine detail has been scrubbed away.
There is something that sits uncomfortably, in this picture, and this political moment in the UK. The Met Police, and the justice system – in the name of defending the rule of law, the impartiality of the judiciary, prosecutorial discretion and the integrity of policing systems – being drawn into direct and visible conflict with a growing popular movement, committed to continuing to protest in favour of a cause – regardless of, and sometimes perhaps because of, the criminal consequences.
“When the law is used as a tool to crush civil liberties, it does not extinguish dissent – it strengthens it.” – Defend our Juries
…
If you enjoyed this brief interruption, and would like to continue thinking about the impact of Banksy’s latest work, I can recommend: Banksy’s erased mural: the irony of power by Ángela León Cervera
✊🏽To learn more about your right to protest in Scotland, and practical solidarity: Scottish Community & Activist Legal Project
🍉To donate to support Palestinians in Gaza: Medical Aid for Palestinians
First published on LinkedIn on 12 September 2025:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/solidarity-pursuit-justice-art-dissent-jen-ang-uwlee
