‘With great joy’: Sally Rooney hails Supreme Court ruling for Palestinian labor as a victory for civil liberties in the UK | Palestine work

Sally Rooney hailed the High Court’s decision that a Palestinian business ban was unlawful under anti-terrorism laws, describing it as a victory for civil liberties in Britain.

Ministers suffered a humiliating legal defeat a week ago when three senior judges ruled that the Direct Action Group’s ban, which targets organizations it considers complicit in arming Israel, was disproportionate and unlawful.

The Irish writer provided two testimonies in support of the case brought by Hoda Amouri, which was cited by the lawyers of the Palestine Action co-founder as evidence of the negative impact of the ban on freedom of expression.

After the ruling, the author of Ordinary People and Conversations with Friends said she intends to use proceeds from her work to support Palestinian action. In September, she canceled a trip to the UK to receive an award for fear of arrest.

In an exclusive interview with The Guardian, Rooney said: “I am of course very pleased and encouraged that the High Court has found the Palestinian labor ban to be unlawful. This is a victory not only for the Palestine solidarity movement but also for civil liberties in Britain.”

“Banning a political protest group under the Terrorism Act represents a truly severe assault on ordinary rights and freedoms, and the Supreme Court has recognized this.”

The “very significant interference” with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly was one of two reasons for the success of Amori’s claim. Rooney said the issue is key to the ban, because the legal question is “not whether the PLO is justified in carrying out its activities, but whether even having this discussion should be a criminal offence.”

She added: “It is important to keep in mind that the primary purpose of the Terrorism Act is not to criminalize acts of violence, which are already illegal, but to criminalize legitimate acts of expression, association, financial transactions, etc.

“These measures, which represent a significant violation of freedom of expression and other rights, were intended to be used against armed groups that pose a serious threat to the public. The parliamentary debate on the Terrorism Act at the time of its passage clearly attested to this intention.

She added: “Using such measures against a protest group that poses absolutely no threat to the public is completely unprecedented, and we now know to be illegal.”

While the judges ruled in favor of Amori, they rejected the idea that the Palestinian Action was non-violent or that it had engaged in civil disobedience, describing it as an organization that “promotes its political cause through criminality and the encouragement of criminality.”

Reacting to the ruling, Interior Minister Shabana Mahmood cited these findings while expressing her disappointment at the outcome. “The Palestinian work ban came after a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process, and was supported by Parliament,” she said.

“As a former Chancellor, I have deep respect for our judiciary. However, Home Secretaries must retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I intend to fight this ruling in the Court of Appeal.”

The Supreme Court said the suggestion that the “Palestinian action” was non-violent “relies on the premise that damage to property, regardless of its size, does not involve the use of violence. This is a view that will be difficult for many to understand, and which we, for our part, are unable to accept.”

Ronnie disagreed. “For me, and I think for many other people, the word ‘violence’ means harming a living being,” she said. “Inanimate objects cannot suffer. Obviously, damaging personal property – for example, smashing up old possessions in order to get rid of them – is not a form of violence. Does the same act become violence if the property belongs to someone else? This is as much a philosophical question as it is a legal question.”

“Of course, the PLO deliberately uses property damage in the service of a campaign against genocide and apartheid. This is entirely consistent with the tradition of civil disobedience, from the suffragettes to the environmental movement. I must admit that I am puzzled by the justices’ claim that civil disobedience must be ‘characterized by restraint.’ We were clearly reading very different history books.”

“So, yes, I disagree with some parts of the judgment – ​​although, unlike the Home Secretary, I agree with his conclusions.”

In her second witness statement in the case, Rooney said it was “almost certain” that she would no longer be able to publish new works in the UK while the ban on the PLO remained in place, and that her existing books might have to be withdrawn from sale, describing such a scenario as “a really extreme incursion by the state into the world of artistic expression”.

While the judges said they proposed overturning the ban, “Palestinian work” remains banned for now, with the court saying it would wait for arguments from the Interior Ministry on why it should remain in place pending appeal.

“If it turns out to be illegal or unconstitutional, it seems to me that it should be repealed between now and then,” Rooney said. “But I now feel confident that it will soon be scrapped completely, and that my work will remain in print in the UK as a result. I will look forward to visiting Britain again when that time comes.”