Forum menu
I think the actions of Israel and Zionists in general will certainly be conflated as Jewish actions and the impact on the Jewish community will suffer.
Especially when zionists insist on pushing the myth that all proper Jews support them and only allegedly "self-hating" Jews don't.
Although ironically the one good thing that has come from Israel's current genocide in Gaza (I can't think of another one) is that more and more people realise what a lie that is.
Anti-zionist Jews have been at the very forefront of speaking out against the genocide and that hasn't gone unnoticed, particularly among Muslim supporters of Palestine.
Obviously there is still a problem with those who haven't yet grasped that undeniable fact and Netanyahu and his far-right government is doing a great deal to fan the flames of anti-semitism.
"This is not the policing of public safety; it is the policing of dissent – and limiting belief and speech.
This is a government that seems all too eager to project control over protest at a time when its foreign policy is deeply unpopular."
Indeed, and it should be seen in the context that in four years time we could very likely have a Nigel Farage-Kemi Badenoch/Robert Jenrick government which will relish further attacks on public dissent.
Under those circumstances Labour will obviously not have the moral authority to challenge attacks on dissent and Farage will presumably just point out that he is simply expanding on the groundwork laid down by "Labour".
None of this should come as a great surprise of course when you look at the way Starmer and the centrists ruthlessly suppressed dissent within the Labour Party when it was in opposition. There was no reason to believe that that mindset would not be a feature of the Starmer's centrist government.
Whatever the flavour Trump, Farage, or Starmer, right-wingers have so much in common.
While Starmer bashing is quite justified, the terrorism laws were put in place and first abused by Blair. Then it's the incremental move to expand and over reach each time by all his successors.
I was told that the opening line of the Terrorists Handbook stated that the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise. That's the only definition that is correct. Everything else is on a scale from peaceful protest to inconvenience to criminal damage.
Anti-terrorism laws have always been abused by UK governments, going right back to arresting people and holding them without trial in concentration camps, or the more innocent sounding "internment" camps.
The special powers that anti-terrorist laws have makes them easy to be abused and that abuse often has a high level of public support which can be fairly easy to manipulate.
Sorry are you seriously asking me how I "feel" about non-violent crime??
No
I have already stated on this thread that I strongly disapprove of Palestine Action's tactics. The fact that I don't approve of them doesn't somehow mean that I should support the idea of classifying non-violent crime as terrorism.
It isn't all non-violent crime. A non-violent crime (or a series) that oversteps a boundary could be classified as terrorism. Government has a series of roles, including justice, national security and defence
This is where proportionality comes into it, which is nothing to do with cans of paint
Do the rights to protest of 10 PA members (for the sake of argument) in the non-violent way that they chose at Brize disproportionately upset the right to national security and defence of the other 68mn of us?
On the basis that they took several military aircraft (vital to national security and defence) out of use, does that satisfy the use of "terrorism"?
PA will have their day in Court to argue the point under the government's role of justice
I, like you, strongly disapprove of PAs tactics and they do have a history of attacking facilities associated with UK defence, e.g.
(2023) Three people have been arrested after a van was driven at a gate during a protest at a drone factory in Leicester.
Campaign group Palestine Action held a demonstration at UAV Tactical Systems in Meridian Way on Wednesday morning. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-67144286(2025) A spokesperson for Elbit said the firm is "proud to deliver a broad range of modern and innovative equipment and services to the British armed forces". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0jw41k9p7o
the terrorism laws were put in place and first abused by Blair.
In 2000, to stop the fuel tanker drivers' dispute, he made use of emergency powers through an Order in Council under Section 3 of the Energy Act 1976.
He considered it so urgent that The Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000 was signed by the Queen and came into force on the day before it was laid before Parliament.
He could have just reduced the enormous taxes on fuel
He then went on to introduce the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which made emergency powers easier to access for government across a range of scenarios
It isn't all non-violent crime.
What Palestine Action did in Brize Norton, which is what is being used to justify classing them as "terrorists", was completely non-violent.
It's as simple as that. If you want to go down Whatabout Road that's a whole different kettle of fish.
The government has been asked to provide the evidence, which they heavily hint they have, to justify proscribing Palestine Action as terrorists and they have so far failed to provide it.
Do the rights to protest of 10 PA members (for the sake of argument) in the non-violent way that they chose at Brize disproportionately upset the right to national security and defence of the other 68mn of us?
On the basis that they took several military aircraft (vital to national security and defence) out of use, does that satisfy the use of "terrorism"?
In what way are these aircraft 'vital to national security and defence'? It's been claimed that these aircraft wouldn't be involved in aiding the current conflict between Israel/USA and Iran, as they have the wrong refuelling connectors or something. So as a British taxpayer, I'm curious as to how my money is being spent in the name of 'national security and defence'. Last time I looked, there was no threat of invasion of our country, and we don't appear to be under any imminent military threat that such aircraft would be instrumental in preventing anyway. So I'm wondering exactly how our 'national security and defence' is being compromised by these aircraft being (temporarily) out of service?
What Palestine Action did in Brize Norton, which is what is being used to justify classing them as "terrorists", was completely non-violent.
In what way is physically attacking aircraft or this morning driving a van at a gate non violent. If someone came and threw a brick through your window would you say that was a non violent act ?
Who have they hurt?
From the dictionary
Violent ”using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.”
Yes the dictionary will give the definition, but not the inference.
When we refer to anything using the word 'violence' it is used in relation to attack or harm against a person, not an inanimate object, as is the case here.
n
A non-violent crime (or a series) that oversteps a boundary could be classified as terrorism.
Anything "can be classified as terrorism" if you're the one doing the classifying. Putin calls Ukrainian attacks on bridges "terrorism". Is he wrong?
Do the rights to protest of 10 PA members (for the sake of argument) in the non-violent way that they chose at Brize disproportionately upset the right to national security and defence of the other 68mn of us?
[...]
I, like you, strongly disapprove of PAs tactics and they do have a history of attacking facilities associated with UK defence, e.g. [Elbit]
What is at stake is not the 10 PA members' right to protest; it is the right to protest of ALL OF US, which is abridged by arbitrary definitions of "terrorism".
One could argue that what really impacts UK security is companies like Elbit that supply the drones used to kill children in Gaza. If they had acted responsibly, the whole situation would never have arisen.
What is at stake is not the 10 PA members' right to protest; it is the right to protest of ALL OF US, which is abridged by arbitrary definitions of "terrorism".
See also restrictions on access to legal aid, originally brought in after "abuse" of the system by migrants. Now we're all ****ed.
If someone came and threw a brick through your window would you say that was a non violent act ?
I would see it as an act of terror/hate because the intention would very clearly be to instill terror/fear.
In the same way if someone pointed a gun at someone, even without pulling the trigger, could be seen as an attempt to instill terror/fear.
I understand what terror and terrorism is.
Palestine Action have not thrown a brick through anyone's window, let's just focus on the non-violent albeit illegal action that they took, not some hypothetical scenarios which have not happened.
And by the way not all criminal acts of violence are also acts of terrorism, so there's that as well.
This is the definition from the CPS.
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
The specific actions included are:
- serious violence against a person;
- serious damage to property;
- endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
- creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
- action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
Most of this is moot if they proscribe(?) PA, but I don't think the act really counts as serious damage. Given how the military categorises damage to equipment and in this case aircraft, I would argue the act falls well short of 'serious damage'. Most likely around the Cat 3 mark given Brize's facilities.
- Cat. 1 Repairable on site by first line maintenance personnel.
- Cat. 2 Repairable on site by second line maintenance personnel.
- Cat. 3 Repairable on site but beyond the technical resources of the unit. Repairs will be done by a Service repair party (Cat.3(SER)), or civilian contractor’s working party (Cat. 3(CWP)). A Cat. 3(FLY) aircraft may be flown under limitations until repaired.
- Cat.4 The damage sustained requires special equipment not available on site and the aircraft must be moved for repair at an established Service repair depot. (Cat.4(SER)) or to a contractor’s works (Cat. 4(WKS)). A Cat. 4(FLY) aircraft may be flown from a site, after temporary repairs have been carried out, to the repair agency for full repairs.
- Cat. 5 The aircraft is damaged beyond economic repair.
- Cat. 5(GI) Damaged or surplus, but suitable for ground instructional use.
- Cat. 5(COMP) Beyond economical repair or surplus, but is salvage of components or spare parts is possible.
- Cat. 5(SCRAP) Beyond economical repair or surplus, and suitable for scrap only.
- Cat. 5(MISSING) Missing - presumed lost.
Either way, through proscribing or using the act it's a weak case and a troubling precedent for all the reasons other posters have eloquently articulated.
Having spent my career having to be very mindful of the threat of various forms of terrorism, from a personal security prespective and a base/operational security perspective I've never had to consider someone on a scooter with a repurposed fire extinguisher a threat, they're more an annoyance.
Anything "can be classified as terrorism" if you're the one doing the classifying. Putin calls Ukrainian attacks on bridges "terrorism". Is he wrong?
Yes. He started a war, Ukraine is fighting a war that he started
You commit war crimes in that situation as a nation state, not terrorism.
States can commit terrorism in other circumstances
What is at stake is not the 10 PA members' right to protest; it is the right to protest of ALL OF US, which is abridged by arbitrary definitions of "terrorism".
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
Obviously. But when a protest leads to criminal damage, it shouldn't get you branded a terrorist. Which was the point being made again.
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
When you make the rules, you decide who is protesting within the rules. Works for Putin, and now it works for Yvette Cooper (*).
(* strangely enough, recipient of considerable Friends of Israel largesse)
If someone came and threw a brick through your window would you say that was a non violent act ?
obviously yes, but if someone painted my window red. No.
Given how the military categorises damage to equipment and in this case aircraft, I would argue the act falls well short of 'serious damage'. Most likely around the Cat 3 mark given Brize's facilities.
Interesting stuff
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
So if Yvette Cooper says you can protest all you like, as long as you stay within your own living room and do it quietly, youre ok with that?
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
Obviously. But when a protest leads to criminal damage, it shouldn't get you branded a terrorist. Which was the point being made again.
And if you look above (somewhere), you'll see that in this specific case l agree.
PA have something of record of damage to military sites and suppliers, that's the bigger issue for them being branded as whatever
No it really isn't. Nothing stops you protesting within the rules; that's one thing that defines a democracy, the rule of law
The suffragettes blew things up got arrested for protests and breaking the law and are now lauded as heros.
The laws of protest in UK have been eroded considerably during the 21st century.
You know the land access you have in England - In large part from non violent but illegal protest. some with voting rights as above
Seemed to work for Just Stop Oil.
if by “work ok” you meant “shut down protest with grotesquely harsh prison sentences” then yes, you’re right.
Seems to “work ok” for Putin as well.
I am fine with Putin jailing anyone who vandalises his warplanes.
He doesn't need to proscribe the group as terrrorists in order to do that. Nor do we.
I am fine with Putin jailing anyone who vandalises his warplanes.
So maybe we should hand over these guys?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ld7ppre9vo
Well, this thread has changed my mind. Proscribing PA (at this point) would be an overreach to my mind now. Not doing so, and instead relying on the normal laws on criminal damage, if the perpetrators are caught, would be a more proportionate response to their actions (so far).
So maybe we should hand over these guys?
What happens at war isn't a good comparison really, is it. Unless PA are at war with the UK? Which they aren't, they are just pushing at the edges of what constitutes protest to make their point.
I agree we can just use existing laws as in Glasgow where PA activists were sentenced to 12 months sentences. As for non violent? As the judge said..
"have read the terms of the criminal justice social work reports. Some authors appear not to have grasped the scale of this disturbance, the consequences to employees of the company, the cost to the company and to the public purse. For example, in one criminal justice social work report it is said that 'the offence is non-violent in nature and was planned as well as intended to cause disruption'. Throwing pyrotechnics into areas where people are being evacuated could hardly be described as non-violent."
What happens at war isn't a good comparison really, is it.
You'd have to take that up with irc - he was the one who suggested it was OK for Putin to jail folk attacking his planes.
How many got hurt by the smoke bomb?
If you are concerned by a bit of paint, you are going to flip when you hear about the criminality and 'violence' of those dastardly women as the Greenham Common peace camp.
They was also involved in multiple intrusions onto the RAF Greenham Common airfield during their protests against the siting of American nuclear cruise missiles.
These actions included cutting(They actually ripped down 4 miles of the perimeter fence FOUR MILES !) and climbing the perimeter fence.
Other notable acts of civil disobedience include- Dancing on top of silos, where 44 women climbed the fence and danced on top of the silos for hours.
They even hosted a picnic on the base while dressed as teddy bears. These acts of civil disobedience were aimed at raising awareness and challenging the presence of nuclear weapons at the base.
Much like the acts by Palestinian Action
At no point did anyone attempt to label the Womens peace movement as a terrorist group, even though there were hundreds of incursions, hundreds of arrests and multiple imprisonments.
How many got hurt by the smoke bomb?
From reading the full remarks, it was throwing the smoke bombs at the staff as they were evacuating from a building under the impression there may have been a fire.
(Bold call deploying pyrotechnics, things going bang can escalate a response they you may not be expecting.)
The comments are balanced and proportionate from my POV.
What happens at war isn't a good comparison really, is it.
Not really, whole different set of laws and parameters.
This is ultimately a bunch of civilians with no allegiance to a hostile nation trying to influence the policy decisions of their own government.
Albeit through illegal and on this occasion, fruitless action.
I'm deeply uncomfortable with individuals being labelled 'terrorists' regardless of if it's an official title or a colloquialism used by the media.
This course of action will have far deeper repercussions for those individuals which I think isn't proportionate.
From reading the full remarks, it was throwing the smoke bombs at the staff as they were evacuating from a building under the impression there may have been a fire.
(Bold call deploying pyrotechnics, things going bang can escalate a response they you may not be expecting.)
The comments are balanced and proportionate from my POV.
Yeah, I don't disagree, but I wouldn't call it an act of terrorism, I don't think.
From reading the full remarks, it was throwing the smoke bombs at the staff as they were evacuating from a building under the impression there may have been a fire.
(Bold call deploying pyrotechnics, things going bang can escalate a response they you may not be expecting.)
The comments are balanced and proportionate from my POV.
Yeah, I don't disagree, but I wouldn't call it an act of terrorism, I don't think.
I don't think they were though? Or have I missed something obvious?
Ah - on reflection, I think IRC's inference was that it was violent, not an act of terrorism.
Zoe Gardner tearing into an ill informed gobshite is a pleasure to watch
https://twitter.com/NoJusticeMTG/status/1937328709469614371
Well, this thread has changed my mind. Proscribing PA (at this point) would be an overreach to my mind now.
Are you mad? That's not how the internet works! You've let yourself down, the forum down, Tim Berners-Lee down....
Zoe Gardner tearing into an ill informed gobshite is a pleasure to watch
More seriously, that is a great piece, and if they want to charge me for expressing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, the government knows where to find me.
If appears that there have been arrests, and arrests on terror charges rather than criminal damage or such like.
I suspect that if they're found guilty (which I appreciate is a way off yet) they'll be made quite the example of.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6m79n6q65o
The suspects aged 24, 29 and 36 are suspected of "the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, contrary to Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000", the force said.
Why do they even need to do that? No warrant and the need to hold them without charge beyond 4 days suggests a lack of evidence, no? I hope the courts throw it out.
I have never been a fan of Palestine Action but right now they have my full support
People who wish to can donate here - pleasingly, it's more than doubled in a couple of days.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/palestine-action/
If appears that there have been arrests, and arrests on terror charges rather than criminal damage or such like.
I suspect that if they're found guilty (which I appreciate is a way off yet) they'll be made quite the example of.
The major issue for the government here is that the Prime Minister himself defended people who carried out pretty similar acts. The press have already seized on this, and it will be used as yet another example of how weak he is. By insisting on proscribing PA, and pushing for terrorism charges to be brought, the Labour government have simply given their opponents even more ammunition. Legal precedent already suggests that those accused can use the defence of trying to prevent greater crimes from taking place. So we could see a very lengthy, expensive trial, numerous appeals etc, ultimately amount to very little other than further damage to the Labour government. Proscribing PA is very much shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
This government seems to be making some very stupid, ill-advised and short-sighted decisions. Far from bringing down pro-Palestinian support, it will only strengthen it. It places the Labour leadership even further from stated aims of wanting peace in the Middle East. The embarrassing fiasco of trying to outlaw the band Kneecap (personally I think the young lad on trial for 'terrorism' is naive, daft and ignorant for not thinking about shouting out support for vile murderous organisations, but a terrorist he really isn't, and I hope he gets off) has only resulted in a massive hike in their popularity (and income, no doubt), and brought a big 'F-you' from the organisers of Glastonbury. Labour are now haemorrhaging support, and this is of real concern, with Farage waiting in the wings.
Starmer is the real embarrassment. I hope he enjoys his very comfortable, well earned dotage.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/palestine-action-starmer-echr/
The group, also known as Seeds of Hope, was found not guilty of causing criminal damage by a jury after they successfully argued that their ‘crime’ was carried out to prevent genocidal acts.
And this is where proscribing an organisation solves a big problem for the government of the day.
Had Seeds of Hope been classified as a terrorist organisation then there would have been no need at all to put them on trial for criminal damage, just being a member of Seeds of Hope would have been sufficient to lock them up for 14 years.
Likewise once Palestine Action has been classified as a terrorist organisation the government will not have to go through the tedious process of providing evidence of criminal damage to a jury, just proving membership will be sufficient. Guilty through association.
We really appear to be entering an era of authoritarianism. Not only is the government providing military and political support to a genocidal regime which is murdering and starving children.but now the government wants classify those who take extreme but non-violent action in response to this horrific situation as terrorists.
Repressive regimes have a tendency to label their opponents as "terrorists", this current Labour government is going down a well-worn path
And the alternative to this authoritarian government? Reform UK. Could it be more depressing?