They were banned under the terrorism act but nothing they've done (as far as I know) falls under the definitions given in the act - hence the ban being idiotic (or worse).
I'd be very surprised if it isn't overturned when the appeal is heard, but we're in the ludicrous situation where the government has been allowed to argue that having the ban in place while any legal discussion occurs isn't detrimental to the group if the ban is overturned. It's Kafka-esque.
To be fair they fall squarely into the definition based on the legislation. You can disagree with that by all means and we can debate the legislation and interpretation but its there:
Relevant UK Terrorism Law: Terrorism Act 2000
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism is defined broadly. Key points include:
Section 1: Definition of Terrorism
> Terrorism means the use or threat of action where the action:
Is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, and
Is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause, and
Involves serious violence, serious damage to property, or creates a serious risk to public health or safety.
Under the law, property damage or disruption—if politically motivated—could fall within the definition of terrorism, even if it doesn't involve violence against people.
That said I can see cases where charges were made in relation to violence against police, emergency workers and security personnel. In Aug 24, March 25 and June 25.
So all the elements are there under the legislation. You can disagree with that but you can't say they are not covered.
www.theguardian.com
www.bbc.co.uk
