Protest as Terrorism: Exploring the Implications of Counter-Terrorism Laws in the Netherlands

September 12, 2025

Introduction
The UK government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 has generated significant debate across Europe. At stake are core questions about the boundaries of lawful protest, the scope of counter-terrorism powers, and the extent to which democratic states may restrict dissent without undermining their own constitutional values. The case also reverberates beyond the UK, shaping discussions in countries such as the Netherlands, where similar legislation is under consideration.


Palestine Action Group
Founded in 2020, Palestine Action is a UK-based network of pro-Palestinian activists. The group is best known for direct actions targeting arms manufacturers and military infrastructure alleged to be complicit in Israel’s occupation and military operations in Gaza. Tactics have included occupations, damage to property, and blockades of production sites and government buildings. Activists frame these actions as civil disobedience, arguing they are a necessary response to what they describe as the UK’s complicity in war crimes.
From the government’s perspective, however, such actions constitute repeated criminal offences, escalating to the level of coercion and intimidation.

Legal Proceedings
On 23 June 2025, the UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced the government’s intention to proscribe Palestine Action. Parliament confirmed the measure on 2 July by a wide majority. Proscription carries serious consequences: membership, public support, or even symbolic affiliation with the organisation became punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

The group immediately challenged the decision in court. On 30 July, the High Court ruled that there was an arguable case that the proscription might infringe rights to freedom of expression and assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights. A full hearing in November will determine whether the proscription is lawful. The outcome will be significant: an annulment could invalidate hundreds of arrests, while an affirmation could establish a precedent for classifying protest movements as terrorist organisations.


International Response
The decision has also drawn international scrutiny. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk criticised the UK’s move, warning that it misapplies terrorism law beyond internationally accepted definitions. Under international standards, terrorism is limited to acts intended to cause death, serious injury, or hostage-taking, with the purpose of intimidating a population or coercing a government. By contrast, the UK’s proscription criminalises even symbolic forms of solidarity - from displaying a logo to sharing supportive material online.

Since July, hundreds have been arrested under the new law, many during peaceful demonstrations. Human rights organisations argue this risks creating a ‘chilling effect’ on the exercise of freedom of expression and assembly. 

For some scholars, this is not about safety but sovereignty. Proscription, they argue, has long been a performance of power: a list to blacklist, a symbol of loyalty to allies, a visible declaration of where a government stands in foreign conflicts. Its roots stretch back to colonial rule. Its purpose, they suggest, is less about neutralising danger and more about declaring dominance.


The Netherlands
The UK’s example has resonated in the Netherlands, where the government is advancing legislation to criminalise the glorification of terrorism and expressions of support for proscribed organisations. The former Ministre of Justice and Security Minister David van Weel argues that such measures are necessary, citing protests at the NATO summit in The Hague in June. Public interest has been considerable: more than 12,000 individuals and organisations responded during the consultation period, the highest number for any draft law this year.

The proposed law introduces three new offences:
  • Publicly praising or celebrating a terrorist offence, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment.
  • Distributing material glorifying terrorist violence (such as a video of an attack accompanied by praise), with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a fine.
  • Expressing support for a banned organisation, for example by displaying symbols or sharing content online, also punishable by up to three years. 

While the government frames the measures as safeguards against the normalisation of extremist rhetoric, critics highlight risks of vagueness and overreach. The Council for the Judiciary has expressed concern that the draft text lacks clarity, making it difficult for courts to distinguish between unlawful glorification and protected political expression. Civil society groups, including Pax, argue that existing Dutch laws already provide sufficient protection against incitement and hate speech. They warn that the proposed legislation could narrow democratic space and disproportionately affect political activists.

Professor Wim Voermans suggests that fears of overreach are overstated. In his view, the offence of glorification would only apply where there is explicit praise of terrorists or their actions, rather than more general expressions of political support or sympathy. He further emphasises that the determination of what counts as terrorism should follow the established legal definitions of “terrorist offences” set out in European and international legislation, which the Netherlands has incorporated. By contrast, the peace organisation Pax contends that the EU’s designations of terrorist groups are driven largely by Western political considerations rather than objective criteria. They highlight what they see as a double standard: violence committed by Hamas is categorised as terrorism, while violence carried out by Israel against Palestinians is not.


Conclusion
The proscription of Palestine Action in the UK represents a significant expansion in the use of counter-terrorism powers against protest movements. Its implications extend beyond the immediate case, raising broader concerns about the proportionality of counter-terrorism measures and their compatibility with democratic rights.

In the Netherlands, similar debates are now unfolding. Proposed legislation criminalising the endorsement of terrorism risks repeating some of the UK’s controversies, blurring the line between safeguarding security and constraining legitimate dissent. The central question remains whether democratic governments can balance security concerns with the protection of fundamental freedoms - or whether, in attempting to control protest, they risk eroding the very values they claim to uphold.


Bibliography
ALMUTAWA, A. and WALKER, C., ‘TO BAN OR NOT TO BAN? The challenges to UK Law from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Wagner Group’, 1 November 2024. 

BRANTLEY, R., Palestine Action and Terrrorism Acts. Why is it important to remember…, 30 June 2025, available on https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/palestine-action-and-the-terrorism-acts/. 

DAWSON, J., Research briefing. Proscribed Terrorist Organisations, House of Commons Library, 27 June 2025, available on https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00815/SN00815.pdf.

FRIJNS, R., Wetsvoorstel tegen verheerlijking terrorisme roept angst voor ‘Britse’ taferelen op, available in English on https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/in-the-media/2025/08/questions-raised-about-proposed-dutch-terrorism-legislation, 15 augustus 2025.  

JARVIS, L. and LEGRAND, T., Banning them, securing us? Terrorism, parliament and the ritual of proscription,  26 March 2020, available on https://www.manchesterhive.com/display/9781526144935/9781526144935.00008.xml

MEAD, D., Palestine Action arrests: what happens next, and what it tells us about the breadth of Britain’s counter-terrorism laws, 15 August 2025, available on https://theconversation.com/palestine-action-arrests-what-happens-next-and-what-it-tells-us-about-the-breadth-of-britains-counter-terrorism-laws-263080.

TURK, V. ‘UK: Palestine Action ban ‘disturbing’ misuse of UK counter-terrorism legislation, Türk warns’, press release, OHCHR, 25 July 2025, available on https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/uk-palestine-action-ban-disturbing-misuse-uk-counter-terrorism-legislation.

Government of the Netherlands, ‘Cabinet approves bill criminalising the glorification of terrorism’, 20 June 2025, available on https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2025/06/20/cabinet-approves-bill-criminalising-the-glorification-of-terrorism.