Debate Night: Proscription

In recent years, governments have increasingly turned to proscription laws to suppress movements and organisations they label as extremist or threatening. In the UK, Palestine Action was recently proscribed as a terrorist organisation, despite being a civil disobedience movement targeting arms companies linked to Israel’s war in Gaza. Similar debates have surrounded attempts to label Antifa as a terrorist entity in the US, even though it is more a loose protest network than a structured group.

Proscription is a powerful tool: once applied, an organisation can be banned, its members prosecuted for mere association, and its funding or support criminalised. Supporters argue this is necessary to safeguard national security and prevent violence. Critics counter that it blurs the line between violent extremism and legitimate dissent, allowing governments to silence voices they find politically inconvenient.
History offers cautionary tales. Anti-colonial movements from India to South Africa were once outlawed under proscription laws, only to later be celebrated as freedom struggles. Today, many worry that the same pattern is repeating, with governments using proscription less as a shield against violence and more as a weapon against protest and opposition.

This debate invites us to ask: is proscription a safeguard for democracy, or a tool that undermines it by criminalising resistance and shrinking civil space?

This debate will include 4 teams of 2 people (2 teams for each side of the motion). New comers are also encouraged to join the debate, and we ask those who would like to speak to bring a pen and paper.