Sally Rooney’s books are being withdrawn from sale in the UK due to her support for Palestine Action

Sally Rooney’s novels are leaving UK shops and platforms because her publisher, Faber, says it cannot pass her earnings from British sales to her. The problem is not the books’ content. It is Rooney’s public support for Palestine Action, which Britain proscribed as a terrorist organisation in June 2025.

Rooney intended to support the group financially by donating royalties. Section 15 of the 2000 Terrorism Act makes it an offence to provide money or property while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, it may be used for terrorism. The maximum penalty is 14 years in prison. Faber says selling books without paying their author would be unconscionable, so it will not supply them in the UK.

Rooney lives in Ireland, where Palestine Action is not prohibited. Yet the UK designation still affects her UK publishing arrangements. She also cancelled a 2025 UK prize trip because she feared arrest. Faber continues supporting her and publishing her elsewhere, while the designation is challenged in the Supreme Court.

Palestine Action was established in the UK in 2020. Its declared aim is to “take direct action against Israel’s arms trade in Britain”. The group’s activities made it controversial because they use disruption and property damage to pursue a political goal. Britain proscribed it as a terrorist organisation in June 2025.

Its main targets have been factories belonging to Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems. It has also acted against British-owned companies and military infrastructure. The article highlights a June 2025 break-in at RAF Brize Norton, where two aircraft were vandalised with spray paint. Some activists linked to the group were separately charged with violent offences.

The government said the group caused millions of pounds in damage and made employees fear for their safety. Critics argue that these actions should be handled through ordinary criminal law, rather than terrorism powers. The proscription is being challenged in the UK Supreme Court, while public support for the group has led to thousands of arrests and charges.

The Terrorism Act creates a serious legal risk for Faber because Rooney planned to donate royalties to Palestine Action. Section 15 says a person commits an offence if they provide money or other property while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, it may be used for terrorism. The provision can therefore affect ordinary commercial payments when the recipient intends to redirect them.

Faber sells Rooney’s work and would normally pay her the royalties generated by UK sales. Because Palestine Action is proscribed in Britain, the publisher says passing those earnings to Rooney could expose it to legal consequences if the money were donated to the group. The offence carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

Faber concluded that selling the books while withholding their author’s earnings was unconscionable. It therefore stopped supplying Rooney’s novels in every format in the UK. The arrangement remains different elsewhere: Rooney is based in Ireland, where Palestine Action is not prohibited, and Faber continues publishing her internationally.

Since Palestine Action was proscribed, publicly expressing support for it has produced a striking number of arrests and charges. The article reports that more than 3,700 people have been arrested and around 2,500 charged in the UK. These figures concern expressions of support, not necessarily participation in the group’s property-damage actions.

The reported expressions have largely involved displaying placards at protests. That detail matters because it shows how the proscription reaches public speech and protest activity, as well as the organisation itself. A person may face police action for expressing support even when the reported conduct is holding a sign.

The scale has intensified criticism of the designation. Critics say terrorism powers are being used against a direct-action organisation whose main activity was damaging property, which they argue could already be addressed through general criminal law. The ban is currently being disputed in the UK Supreme Court, so its future remains contested.

The article describes arrest and possible criminal charges as the immediate legal consequences of publicly supporting Palestine Action after its proscription. More than 3,700 people have been arrested, and around 2,500 charged. These cases show that the designation reaches public expressions of support, not only alleged acts carried out by the organisation.

The reported examples are especially notable because many involved protest placards. Holding a sign expressing support can therefore bring someone within the enforcement response described in the article. The source does not state that every arrest leads to conviction, or specify a standard sentence for displaying a placard, so those outcomes cannot be assumed.

Critics say this broad reach threatens free expression and represents government overreach. They distinguish the group’s property damage from organisations that directly target people. The designation is currently being challenged in the UK Supreme Court, while its effects already extend to protests, publishing arrangements and financial support.

Critics distinguish Palestine Action’s direct action from terrorist violence because the group’s main targets were property and infrastructure. Its stated campaign opposed Israel’s arms trade in Britain. Break-ins, spray paint and damage can cause serious disruption, but they are different in kind from organisations that actively target people.

The article contrasts Palestine Action with the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. The former encourages murders and assaults, while the latter has a paramilitary wing and is described as white supremacist and antisemitic. Palestine Action’s main reported conduct involved damage to weapons facilities, companies and military infrastructure, although some associated activists faced violent charges.

Critics argue that ordinary criminal laws can police and deter property damage without using the Terrorism Act. They fear the designation collapses important differences between direct action and violence against people. That distinction matters because the terrorist label has produced arrests for placards, created royalty risks and raised wider concerns about free expression. The ban is now before the UK Supreme Court.

The article presents terrorist designation as giving the government a powerful legal framework around an organisation and its supporters. Once Palestine Action was proscribed, public expressions of support could lead to arrest and charges. Financial support also became risky because Section 15 covers money or property that may be used for terrorism.

The practical mechanism is visible in Rooney’s publishing case. She planned to donate royalties to Palestine Action. Faber feared that passing UK earnings to her could create legal consequences, so it stopped supplying her novels in Britain rather than sell them without paying her. Protesters faced a separate enforcement response: many were arrested for displaying placards.

Critics say these effects show why the designation matters for free expression. They argue the government has applied terrorism powers to a group mainly associated with property damage, which ordinary criminal law could address. The ban is being disputed in the Supreme Court. Faber still publishes Rooney in other countries, but UK sales have ended.