Sally Rooney books cannot be sold in UK amid Palestine Action ban: publisher

This is apropos. Independent booksellers and free speech advocates have expressed solidarity with the best-selling Irish author Sally Rooney, who can no longer sell her novels in the UK because of her support for Palestine Action. The group was banned as a terrorist organisation by the British government in July 2025, placing it on the same blacklist as militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Monty Francis has the story. Sally Rooney's books have sold millions of copies worldwide. Some of them, such as Normal People, have even been adapted for the small screen. But her publisher said Wednesday it had decided, with Rooney's agreement, to halt sales of her work in the U.K. in any format, but adding that it would continue to sell her books elsewhere. The publisher said in a statement, Current legislation in the U.K. has led to circumstances where Faber could not pass on U.K. earnings to Sally Rooney for her work. I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action. The move relates to Rooney's pledged financial support of a pro-Palestinian group in the U.K. called Palestine Action. The group has targeted defense companies linked to Israel, and the British government designated the group a terrorist organization following a break-in at an airbase last year. That designation makes it a crime to be a member or to support the group. In a statement, Rooney said, I have made every effort to be honest with the public about my beliefs and intentions, and I am wholly prepared to accept the consequences. More than 3,500 people have been arrested for supporting Palestine Action since July of last year. The group's co-founder has challenged the terrorist designation in court, and the Supreme Court is due to hear an appeal next month. For more, we're joined now by Alan Green, professor of constitutional law and human rights at the Birmingham Law School. Thanks so much Alan for being with us on the program this evening. We heard a little bit about it there in that report but just remind us why Palestine Action was banned in the UK in the first place and when a group is proscribed like this what kind of criminal offences are actually triggered that make it illegal to express support for it. Thank you. Good evening, yes so Palestine Action were proscribed in July 2025 after an attack that carried out on RAF Broyton Norton in which they broke into the airbase and spray painted two airplanes. Now Palestine Action two military airplanes. Now Palestine Action are considered themselves to be a direct action group and would tend to carry out property damage against particularly against a company called Elbit Systems which is an arms manufacturer linked to Israel but It also carried out property damage against other businesses, which it considered to be linked to Israel. In terms of its actual attacks, the government's own assessment stated that only three of its 385 attacks actually met the UK definition of terrorism, which includes causing serious damage to property. So despite only causing 1% of their actions meeting this definition of terrorism and for the UK having a long history of direct action groups, for example, the Suffragettes and other groups as well who were opposed to Iraq war, they nevertheless took this unprecedented decision to ban Palestine Action as an unlawful organization. Now, when an organisation is banned, a series of different offences are triggered. For example, membership offences, but also expressing support for the organisation. If you're expressing that support, you're reckless as to whether another person might support it. Some 3,500 people that we've seen arrested have been for essentially wearing a uniform or displaying a sign that gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that they support the organisation. So we've basically seen a 1500% increase in counter-terrorist arrests in the UK as a result of this single unprecedented action to prescribe a group solely on the basis that they commit property damage. As you've mentioned, groups that tend to be prescribed in the UK are those that actually carry out violence against persons or glorify and call for violence against the person. So this was a really significant lowering of the bar in terms of what the government considers to be terrorism and it does set quite a worrying precedent for any future government that might want to use similar powers for other groups. And Alan, bearing all of that in mind then, is it a logical conclusion in your view legally that Sally Rooney would see her books being pulled from bookshelves then in the UK? So Sally Rooney is concerned and our publishers are concerned about a different offence and it's the offence of fundraising under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act. Now, this makes it an offence for somebody to give money to a person when they have a reasonable suspicion that that money will be used for terrorist purposes. So the issue here is that Sally Rooney's publisher, Faber, are concerned that by them giving their money to Sally Rooney who has herself declared that she supports Palestine Action and she will raise and give funds to Palestine Action, they are concerned that they will be committing an offence by doing so. Now we don't have any case law on this, but when it comes to things like free speech and when we're talking about counter-terrorist offences that attract quite significant criminal punishment That can have quite a serious chilling effect on a publisher or on anybody else that basically doesn't want to take the risk to check and stress whether the police or the director of public prosecution will prosecute them for an offence. And ultimately, this does point to a key issue with the UK's counterterrorism laws is that they're actually drafted incredibly broadly and they vest vast discretion in the police and in other decision makers that they don't actually abuse that power. And that might have worked for quite some time, although others would question as to whether it has ever worked. But what we're actually seeing now is that trust in the discretion in what I like to call the good chaps and the UK Constitution and its approach to public power in general likes to trust the good chaps. That seems to have broken down when it comes to the use of the prescription powers here in this specific context. And I can completely understand why in this climate the publisher doesn't want to take the risk, doesn't want to both risk the criminal charge and also even if they were to win, you know, legal proceedings cost quite a lot of money. So that, I think, is a sufficient enough chilling effect for the publishers to basically say we're not going to take the risk in this instance. Well Alan, what safeguards then should be in place to prevent laws that are originally intended to address security concerns, as this one was, from having unintended consequences for artistic expression? So I would argue that we would nearly need to go back and re-look again at the definition of terrorism. And actually, the UK Supreme Court, all the way back in 2013, said that this definition was far too broad. It's uncertain and it affects people's ability to conduct their life and to make decisions, not knowing whether or not they will be committing an offence. However, the Supreme Court also said because of the UK's constitutional system, there's actually nothing that they can do about it and it's up to Parliament to fix it. Now, they said this over 13 years ago and still Parliament has not done anything. So I personally would argue that a definition would need to be narrower. And we had a recent report published last year by an independent commission examining the UK's approach to counterterrorism laws. They proposed a much narrower definition of terrorism, in particular narrowing that definition of property damage to heighten it and to make it more difficult to prescribe a direct action group such as Palestine Action. Likewise, in terms of the prescription offences, the idea of that essentially they call this this offence of wearing a uniform or public images or displaying an image, for example, that causes a reasonable suspicion or that you support an organisation. and that could be amended for example by essentially stating that uh it's it's what they call a strict liability offense currently so basically someone might wave a flag and maybe not intend to support an organization uh in that instance by actually requiring intention that would narrow it but also just in terms of general freedom of expression and the offenses pertaining to prescription. There would be several ways in which you could narrow the scope and narrow the effect of them. But ultimately, a lot of it as well comes down to actually the power of the Home Secretary to prescribe an organisation in the first place and trying to limit and curtail that. Again, that would ultimately, however, come back to amending and refining the definition of terrorism in the UK. Alan, is there some degree of hypocrisy here in terms of the expectation that certain people would have that artists and celebrities should speak out about political issues, about humanitarian issues, and the risks then that they face, whether they be legal or economic, when they do decide to speak out? So I think in this particular instance, I think what Sally Rooney is doing is actually she's illustrating the counterproductive nature of counter-terrorism powers in the UK. I would imagine a lot of people across the world had never heard of Palestine Action until the government prescribed them. So it's actually been deeply counterproductive. Rather than actually hamper the organisation, all it has done is actually raise its profile. And the entire point of terrorism or direct action is what we call the propaganda of the deed. It's to actually raise the cause, raise the profile of the cause. And in so doing, the UK government has absolutely done that. They've raised the profile of Palestine Action. And I think Sally Rooney has certainly done that too. So I think this is a concrete example of counterproductive counterterrorism. Certainly someone could argue that there are other ways in which an individual could cause or could promote a cause, for example, the support for Palestinians in opposition to the genocide that is occurring in Palestine. But certainly Sally Rooney has taken the decision that this is the most effective way for her to do this, and it certainly has seemed to be quite effective. I think the fact that I'm on TV now talking about it illustrates that it has been effective, and it completely illustrates It's the, I think, basically the counterproductive nature of prescription in this instance. No one was saying, and most people would probably state, that what Palestine Action was doing constituted criminal damage. And the ordinary criminal law is more than able to deal with this issue. And as you see, the High Court initially in the challenge to Palestine Action agreed, agreed with that, agreed with that statement that the ordinary criminal law can deal with this. You shouldn't be using prescription because of the harm that it causes to the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association. However, when you get to the Court of Appeal judgment, which overturned the High Court judgment, they basically washed their hands of the decision and said look, we just have to trust the government on this and ultimately found it to be proportionate. As you mentioned in your bulletin at the start, the Supreme Court will be hearing this case in November. We'll probably get the judgment published in January to see where they will go on it. I personally would maybe not be so optimistic that the the Supreme Court will overturn the Court of Appeal decision. But I do think currently it is a disproportionate ban that doesn't give adequate due consideration to freedom of expression or freedom of association. Alan, thanks so much for that. We'll have to leave it there for now. That is Professor Alan Green from Birmingham Law School. Do stay with us. We'll be right back with more.