Lift the Ban: Judicial Review of the Proscription of Palestine Action. Part 3: proportionality

Important Disclaimer! This is me, David Chapman, with no legal training, trying to make sense of what has gone on. I will come back to edit it as I understand things better. 

This is one of my Lift the Ban posts. See especially Part 1 and Part 2 of my discussion on the Judgement of the Judicial Review of the Proscription of Palestine Action.

Paragraph 25 in the introductory section (Section A) of the Judgement:

It is plain then that through the Underground Manual, Palestine Action encourages its members and others who align with it to plan and cause damage to property. There is no suggestion of restraint or proportionality. On the contrary, and entirely consistent with its objectives, Palestine Action encourages the causing of more, rather than less harm.

Note the sentence "There is no suggestion of restraint or proportionality." 

Whenever you refer to 'proportionality' there is a comparison involved. This is (or is not) proportional to this. As I allude to in Part 2 of my discussion, the judges when discussing Ground 2, commendably, spend a lot of time comparing the useful consequences of proscribing Palestine Action (prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes which are terrorism in the meaning of the 2000 Act) with the damaging consequences of the proscription (excessive infringement of the rights of individuals under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights). They conclude that the damage as a consequence of the latter outweighs the merits (in their opinion) of the former and therefore they uphold Ground 2.

When it comes to Paragraph 25, on the other hand, as far as I can see, there is no explanation whatever of what the harm caused by the actions of Palestine Action is being compared to when they say "There is no suggestion of ... proportionality."

I can only think that they don't address this because they don't like the answer. Because the comparison which is staring you in the face is with the genocide. And what is especially stark is the comparison of the destruction of 80% of the buildings in whole of Gaza with the damage to property perpetrated by Palestine Action. The thing is, one of the disputed aspects of the 2000 Terrorism Act is how it allows damage to property to be defined as terrorism. OK, there are indeed good reasons to recognise that damage to property can be terrible and can justifiably be deemed terrorism. Witness Israel's targetting of the hospitals of Gaza. 

In a way, I'm surprised that the judges kept the word 'proportionality' in the paragraph. The paragraph would have worked without 'or proportionality' and having it there cries out for the comparison with the destruction and genocide of Gaza.