UK home secretary running ‘cynical media campaign’ over Palestine Action ban: Lawyers
UK home secretary running ‘cynical media campaign’ over Palestine Action ban: Lawyers/node/2613453/world
UK home secretary running ‘cynical media campaign’ over Palestine Action ban: Lawyers
UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has been accused of running a “cynical media campaign” against Palestine Action that breaches her duties over a court case challenging the group’s banning. (X/@addicted2newz)
UK home secretary running ‘cynical media campaign’ over Palestine Action ban: Lawyers
Yvette Cooper’s claim that it was planning violence has not been scrutinized in court
Co-founder Huda Ammori is challenging July decision to list group as terrorist organization
Updated 29 August 2025
Arab News
LONDON: UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has been accused of running a “cynical media campaign” against Palestine Action that breaches her duties over a court case challenging the group’s banning.
Lawyers representing Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori sent a letter to the government’s legal department making the accusation, The Guardian reported on Friday.
Ammori has been given permission for a judicial review of Cooper’s decision in early July to ban the group under the UK Terrorism Act.
In the letter, Ammori’s lawyers from the firm Birnberg Peirce argue that Cooper’s public statements, widely reported in the media, are at odds with her disclosures in the review case at the High Court.
“At the centre of your client’s media campaign is an attempt to persuade the public that Palestine Action was proscribed for reasons which she is unable to reveal publicly and which are centred on violence and injuries against people,” the lawyers said.
“These claims about the reason for Proscription Review Group’s recommendation for the proscription of Palestine Action are misleading in light of open (public) disclosure.”
In announcing Palestine Action’s proscription, Cooper had said publicly that the group was planning violent acts to further its cause.
But she refused to disclose the nature of these planned attacks or how authorities discovered them.
Ammori’s lawyers said: “It is clear from the open disclosure that the basis for the recommendation was serious damage to property caused by Palestine Action and not violence against people.
“Indeed the central advice to your client was that proscribing Palestine Action would advance ‘the deterrent message of stating clearly that serious damage to property to advance a cause, amounts to terrorism regardless of the cause.’”
Some of the evidence at the judicial review hearing was kept private from Ammori and her legal team.
But Birnberg Peirce’s lawyers have argued that Cooper’s references to secret information regarding Palestine Action must be heard in the review.
“Anything that your client feels able to share with the media should be in your client’s open case, even by way of gist,” they wrote.
Ammori’s lawyers also highlighted an opinion piece authored by Cooper in The Observer. In the piece, the home secretary referred to “disturbing information given to me that covered ideas and planning for future attacks (by Palestine Action).”
Yet this information was left out of open court in the judicial hearing, as were allegations made by Cooper and Prime Minister Keir Starmer that Palestine Action targeted Jewish businesses.
Those allegations relate to a Jewish business operated by a landlord of a subsidiary of Elbit, the Israeli arms company, a fact that Cooper was “well aware” of, the letter said.
It added: “This cynical media campaign reflects a fundamental lack of respect for court proceedings, and either indicates an attempt by your client to influence media coverage through assertions which she cannot evidence, or is reflective of a serious breach of her duty of candour in these proceedings.”
The letter continued: “The proper place for your client to advance her case is in court. Your client’s approach in relation to briefing the media with a wholly different basis for proscription is entirely improper and a breach of her duty to the court.
“If your client has evidence to support her assertions, this ought to have been disclosed. As she has not, she must cease her misleading campaign immediately.”
US vaccine advisers say not all babies need a hepatitis B shot at birth
Vaccine advisers named by Kennedy reverse decades-long recommendation
Kennedy’s advisory committee decided to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive
President Donald Trump posted a message calling the vote a “very good decision”
Updated 6 sec ago
AP
NEW YORK: A federal vaccine advisory committee voted on Friday to end the longstanding recommendation that all US babies get the hepatitis B vaccine on the day they’re born.
A loud chorus of medical and public health leaders decried the actions of the panel, whose current members were all appointed by US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a leading anti-vaccine activist before this year becoming the nation’s top health official.
“This is the group that can’t shoot straight,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University vaccine expert who for decades has been involved with ACIP and its workgroups.
Several medical societies and state health departments said they would continue to recommend them. While people may have to check their policies, the trade group AHIP, formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans, said its members still will cover the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine.
For decades, the government has advised that all babies be vaccinated against the liver infection right after birth. The shots are widely considered to be a public health success for preventing thousands of illnesses.
But Kennedy’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive, and in cases where the mom wasn’t tested.
For other babies, it will be up to the parents and their doctors to decide if a birth dose is appropriate. The committee voted 8-3 to suggest that when a family elects to wait, then the vaccination series should begin when the child is 2 months old.
President Donald Trump posted a message late Friday calling the vote a “very good decision.”
The acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jim O’Neill, is expected to decide later whether to accept the committee’s recommendation.
The decision marks a return to a health strategy abandoned more than three decades ago
Asked why the newly-appointed committee moved quickly to reexamine the recommendation, committee member Vicky Pebsworth on Thursday cited “pressure from stakeholder groups,” without naming them.
Committee members said the risk of infection for most babies is very low and that earlier research that found the shots were safe for infants was inadequate.
They also worried that in many cases, doctors and nurses don’t have full conversations with parents about the pros and cons of the birth-dose vaccination.
The committee members voiced interest in hearing the input from public health and medical professionals, but chose to ignore the experts’ repeated pleas to leave the recommendations alone.
The committee gives advice to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how approved vaccines should be used. CDC directors almost always adopted the committee’s recommendations, which were widely heeded by doctors and guide vaccination programs. But the agency currently has no director, leaving acting director O’Neill to decide.
In June, Kennedy fired the entire 17-member panel earlier this year and replaced it with a group that includes several anti-vaccine voices.
Hepatitis B and delaying birth doses
Hepatitis B is a serious liver infection that, for most people, lasts less than six months. But for some, especially infants and children, it can become a long-lasting problem that can lead to liver failure, liver cancer and scarring called cirrhosis.
In adults, the virus is spread through sex or through sharing needles during injection drug use. But it can also be passed from an infected mother to a baby.
In 1991, the committee recommended an initial dose of hepatitis B vaccine at birth. Experts say quick immunization is crucial to prevent infection from taking root. And, indeed, cases in children have plummeted.
Still, several members of Kennedy’s committee voiced discomfort with vaccinating all newborns. They argued that past safety studies of the vaccine in newborns were limited and it’s possible that larger, long-term studies could uncover a problem with the birth dose.
But two members said they saw no documented evidence of harm from the birth doses and suggested concern was based on speculation.
Three panel members asked about the scientific basis for saying that the first dose could be delayed for two months for many babies.
“This is unconscionable,” said committee member Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, who repeatedly voiced opposition to the proposal during the sometimes-heated two-day meeting.
The committee’s chair, Dr. Kirk Milhoan, said two months was chosen as a point where infants had matured beyond the neonatal stage. Hibbeln countered that there was no data presented that two months is an appropriate cut-off.
Dr. Cody Meissner also questioned a second proposal — which passed 6-4 — that said parents consider talking to pediatricians about blood tests meant to measure whether hep B shots have created protective antibodies.
Such testing is not standard pediatric practice after vaccination. Proponents said it could be a new way to see if fewer shots are adequate.
A CDC hepatitis expert, Adam Langer, said results could vary from child to child and would be an erratic way to assess if fewer doses work. He also noted there’s no good evidence that three shots pose harm to kids.
Meissner attacked the proposal, saying the language “is kind of making things up.”
Health experts say this could ‘make America sicker’
Health experts have noted Kennedy’s hand-picked committee is focused on the pros and cons of shots for the individual getting vaccinated, and has turned away from seeing vaccinations as a way to stop the spread of preventable diseases among the public.
The second proposal “is right at the center of this paradox,” said committee member Dr. Robert Malone.
Some observers criticized the meeting, noting recent changes in how they are conducted. CDC scientists no longer present vaccine safety and effectiveness data to the committee. Instead, people who have been prominent voices in anti-vaccine circles were given those slots.
The committee “is no longer a legitimate scientific body,” said Elizabeth Jacobs, a member of Defend Public Health, an advocacy group of researchers and others that has opposed Trump administration health policies. She described the meeting this week as “an epidemiological crime scene.”
Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a liver doctor who chairs the Senate health committee, called the committee’s vote on the hepatitis B vaccine “a mistake.”
“This makes America sicker,” he said, in a post on social media.
The committee heard a 90-minute presentation from Aaron Siri, a lawyer who has worked with Kennedy on vaccine litigation. He ended by saying that he believes there should no ACIP vaccine recommendations at all.
In a lengthy response, Meissner said, “What you have said is a terrible, terrible distortion of all the facts.” He ended by saying Siri should not have been invited.
The meeting’s organizers said they invited Siri as well as a few vaccine researchers — who have been vocal defenders of immunizations — to discuss the vaccine schedule. They named two: Dr. Peter Hotez, who said he declined, and Dr. Paul Offit, who said he didn’t remember being asked but would have declined anyway.
Hotez, of the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, declined to present before the group “because ACIP appears to have shifted its mission away from science and evidence-based medicine,” he said in an email to The Associated Press.