Almost half of all terrorism arrests in Great Britain since 9⁄11 have occurred in the past year alone — a figure that demands more than a headline. The Home Office recorded 6,539 terror-related arrests since 2001, with 3,021 of those in the year to March 2026. The single largest driver is the proscription of Palestine Action last July, which has led to thousands of arrests of people accused of supporting the protest group. The ban is unprecedented: Palestine Action is the first direct-action group to be outlawed under the Terrorism Act, and it has drawn criticism from UN experts, a former director of public prosecutions, and a former MI5 director. A legal challenge heads to the Supreme Court in November.
The scale of the increase is hard to ignore. It suggests that the definition of terrorism in the UK may have become so broad that it captures activity most people would not consider terrorism — such as peaceful protest or expressions of solidarity. Ruth Ehrlich of Liberty, which intervened in the case, said the data “is the clearest indicator that the UK’s counter-terror laws are not fit for purpose.” That is a strong claim, but the numbers give it weight. When a quarter-century of cumulative arrests is nearly doubled in a single year largely because of one group’s proscription, the system is no longer operating as originally designed.
There is a deeper question here about proportionality and purpose. The Islamic reminder for today notes that Allah is ever-present, watching over all human affairs — and that Mecca was made a sanctuary where even cutting a thorn bush is prohibited. That principle of sanctuary is not about a specific place but about the idea that some spaces and some actions should be protected from the logic of maximum force. A counter-terror framework that treats protest as equivalent to bomb plots has lost sight of that distinction. The answer is not to weaken security, but to ensure that the law is precise enough to catch real threats without sweeping up legitimate dissent. The Home Office should review whether the current definition of terrorism is being applied too broadly, and Parliament should consider whether the proscription power, which can be used against any group deemed to “glorify” terrorism, needs clearer limits. Good counter-terror policy protects both public safety and the right to lawful protest — it should not have to choose between them.