Last month I wrote a blog post about the reasons why teachers have been barred so far this year from ‘teaching’ and ‘working with young people’ by their regulatory body.

The fact that a large number of protesters were arrested last weekend for supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation, made me think about how might the regulatory body approach any teacher with a criminal record for supporting a proscribed organisation?

Paul Harris, a human rights lawyer, has written an interesting article about the prescription of Palestine Action Why proscription of Palestine Action is a mistake | COUNSEL | The Magazine of the Bar of England and Wales In his view the prescription was too draconian a response.

I asked him about the position of teachers arrested protesting the proscription, and this was our exchange on LinkedIn:

John Howson Paul, Thank you for writing this. I wonder whether the Teaching Regulatory body would disbar someone from teaching for the act of terrorism of holding up a placard?

Paul HarrisAuthor Barrister and senior counsel at Doughty Street Chambers, Cornwall Street Chambers, Erik Shum Chambers, Hong Kong

John
Maybe not for just holding up a placard if they were not charged. But if convicted of an offence of supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation because of holding up the banner then it seems to me the Teaching Regulatory Body would have little choice but to disbar.

I am not sure why a Labour government took the decision it did over Palestine Action. It is interesting to compare it with how the Conservative government behaved when Extinction Rebellion were protesting by both sitting down on motorways and through other types of disruptive protest.

Following on from Paul Harris’s comment, I think that any direct action protest, and the actions of Extinction Rebellion supporters was seen as just that, and punishable under existing laws raises interesting questions. Did the behaviour of the courts in Extinction Rebellion cases set a precedent for state action over protests. There is, I suppose, a question mark over any such precedent when the direct action involves defence assets, such as airplane engines.

However, even if direct action could be seen as terrorism, I don’t think reacting to the government’s decision to prescribe and organisation by supporting the existence of the banned group through holding up a placard makes those that take that action guilty of terrorism.

However, in the light of Paul’s comment, my guess is that any teacher holding up a banner with any reference to Palestine Action might well be risking their career in the present circumstances, even if they are doing so in their own time, and nowhere near their place of work.

Clearly, it is time for the professional associations to engage with the Secretary of State for Education, both in her cabinet role, and in her role as a possible candidate for the post of deputy leader of The Labour Party, to ensure peaceful protest is not classed as terrorism, even in support of a banned organisation.

The idea of a Labour Secretary of State for Education supporting a regulatory body’s decision to bar a teacher for holding up a placard is not one I ever expect to have to consider on this blog.