Share this post:
Take a look at the following – it’s video of police arresting a blind, wheelchair-bound man for attending a demonstration to say he doesn’t think a group should be proscribed as terrorists for painting other people’s property red:
I’m oversimplifying to make a point, of course. But the point is strong: the reasons for which Palestine Action has been proscribed have not been fully disclosed, and those that have are not enough to justify the decision.
In arresting people who believe aligning this – admittedly criminal – organisation with terrorists who have intentionally murdered others is wrong, the UK’s Labour government has created a terrifying precedent that could be used to oppress us all. Was that the intention?
This Site has covered the arrests and their implication in a previous article. It does not support criminal activity – and certainly does not support genuine terrorism. Fortunately, it remains legal to argue against the proscription of organisations on the grounds that it is wrong to describe them as terrorists.
Until the government provides concrete evidence of genuine terrorist activity – under the widely-understood definition of terrorism as using violence or the threat of violence to instil fear for political, ideological, religious or economic objectives, I would argue that it has not made out its case fully and that Palestine Action should not be proscribed.
Indeed, its proscription was opposed by many in the Labour Party itself last month, because Palestine Action was lumped in with genuine terrorist organisations:
The House of Commons was … asked to vote on whether to proscribe two neo-Nazi groups, the Russian Imperial Movement and the Maniacs Murder Cult. They added Palestine Action to the vote last minute
This is why some MPs did not vote. They abstained. Because they while they wanted to proscribe the two neo-Nazi groups,they didn’t believe Palestine Action met the bar needed to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.(1)
Not only that, but MPs and peers spoke against the proscription at the time – like Baron Hain in the House of Lords:
I’ve never supported their activity, but there’s a great difference between what they did and terrorism.. This Labour government is treating Palestine Action as equivalent to ISIS or Al Qaeda, which is intellectually bankrupt, politically unprincipled, and morally wrong. Frankly I’m deeply ashamed. (2)
Nadia Whittome spoke against it in the House of Commons:
Speaking after Saturday’s arrests, Baroness Chakrabarti, former head of human rights organisation Liberty, had this to say:
Let’s also remember that Home Secretary Yvette Cooper once expressed support for the Suffragette movement in the House of Commons – a movement that, under her own law, she would today proscribe as terrorist:
Today (Monday, August 11), Alex Davies-Jones – ironically, Labour’s Minister for Victims – was wheeled out to do the morning media round and justify the violence Labour ordered police to commit against good-faith protesters like that wheelchair-bound blind man in the clip at the top of this article.
Here’s what she said (I’m using the longest clip I have, that summarises all of the points she repeated on this show and elsewhere):
Let’s just pause for a moment to remember police arrested a gentleman wearing a t-shirt marked Plasticine Action – before releasing him when he explained to them that he was only supporting Morph (look him up).
Farrukh, who posted the clip, added:
I do not support the methods of Palestine Action, and any criminal behaviour ought to be prosecuted; precedent shows the Fairford Five in 2003 breaking into RAF Fairford causing damage were not deemed terrorists but criminals.
Even Keir Starmer understands their motivations when he refers to the genocide inflicted upon the people of Gaza by Israel as intolerable.
I despair that Labour have created yet another culture war, they’re really trying to give the 14 years of Conservative chaos a run for their money.
Shame on you, Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper, you’ve made a mockery of our terrorism legislation, arresting everyone from retired surgeons, to elderly women who can barely walk, to blind disabled men in wheelchairs – you are both so much worse than Suella Braverman’s hate marches rhetoric.
Farrukh also stated that “High Court Judge Mr. Justice Chamberlain ruled that the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action may breach natural justice and rights to free expression and assembly under Articles 6, 10, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“While a bid to pause the ban was rejected, the judicial review is ongoing, with a potential ruling not expected until 2026.”
If the ruling goes against the government (as seems likely), what will this mean for the 532 people arrested as supporters of terrorism on Saturday?
What will it mean for the government that explicitly demanded those arrests and tried to justify them today?
And what penalty will these politicians pay?
(1) and (2) https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1954824319764189484
Share this post:
Labour’s justification of protest arrests is totalitarian twaddle
Share this post:
Take a look at the following – it’s video of police arresting a blind, wheelchair-bound man for attending a demonstration to say he doesn’t think a group should be proscribed as terrorists for painting other people’s property red:
I’m oversimplifying to make a point, of course. But the point is strong: the reasons for which Palestine Action has been proscribed have not been fully disclosed, and those that have are not enough to justify the decision.
In arresting people who believe aligning this – admittedly criminal – organisation with terrorists who have intentionally murdered others is wrong, the UK’s Labour government has created a terrifying precedent that could be used to oppress us all. Was that the intention?
This Site has covered the arrests and their implication in a previous article. It does not support criminal activity – and certainly does not support genuine terrorism. Fortunately, it remains legal to argue against the proscription of organisations on the grounds that it is wrong to describe them as terrorists.
Until the government provides concrete evidence of genuine terrorist activity – under the widely-understood definition of terrorism as using violence or the threat of violence to instil fear for political, ideological, religious or economic objectives, I would argue that it has not made out its case fully and that Palestine Action should not be proscribed.
Indeed, its proscription was opposed by many in the Labour Party itself last month, because Palestine Action was lumped in with genuine terrorist organisations:
Not only that, but MPs and peers spoke against the proscription at the time – like Baron Hain in the House of Lords:
Nadia Whittome spoke against it in the House of Commons:
Speaking after Saturday’s arrests, Baroness Chakrabarti, former head of human rights organisation Liberty, had this to say:
Let’s also remember that Home Secretary Yvette Cooper once expressed support for the Suffragette movement in the House of Commons – a movement that, under her own law, she would today proscribe as terrorist:
Today (Monday, August 11), Alex Davies-Jones – ironically, Labour’s Minister for Victims – was wheeled out to do the morning media round and justify the violence Labour ordered police to commit against good-faith protesters like that wheelchair-bound blind man in the clip at the top of this article.
Here’s what she said (I’m using the longest clip I have, that summarises all of the points she repeated on this show and elsewhere):
Let’s just pause for a moment to remember police arrested a gentleman wearing a t-shirt marked Plasticine Action – before releasing him when he explained to them that he was only supporting Morph (look him up).
Farrukh, who posted the clip, added:
Farrukh also stated that “High Court Judge Mr. Justice Chamberlain ruled that the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action may breach natural justice and rights to free expression and assembly under Articles 6, 10, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“While a bid to pause the ban was rejected, the judicial review is ongoing, with a potential ruling not expected until 2026.”
If the ruling goes against the government (as seems likely), what will this mean for the 532 people arrested as supporters of terrorism on Saturday?
What will it mean for the government that explicitly demanded those arrests and tried to justify them today?
And what penalty will these politicians pay?
(1) and (2) https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1954824319764189484
Share this post:
you might also like
Police State Britain: Tories would arrest you for looking at them in a funny way
The security services are already snooping on us – why aren’t we out in the streets about it?
See if YOUR objection is mentioned in the Surveillance Bill debate!