Forum menu
The point that was being made, however, is something completely different. It is that what the law said at the time was contrary to what we now see as self evident - e.g. that women should have the right to vote, and that whatever the law says today can likewise not be considered to be an ultimate arbiter of what is right. Your little list of current legislation is therefore irrelevant.
The point being made in this thread was about protest; peaceful, violent or terrorism.
Your example that women should have the right to vote is a good example of the interests of the nation in women's rights and full democracy v government.
What history doesn't address is how we got there. Suffragists remained a peaceful movement while Suffragettes "broke away" into direct action and were by any standards, then and now, terrorists.
They bombed and set fire to buildings including an attempt on the Theatre Royal during a matinee performance because PM Herbert Asquith was there. The terror campaign only lasted a couple of years before WW1 came along and women were then involved in factory work, farming, etc.
Did the Suffragists win the day, continuing peaceful protest from 1897 to full democracy after WW1, or did the Suffragettes campaign of terror for a couple of years until 1914 win the day?
If you know the answer please share it because historians can't agree and history has been glossed over for the rest of us.
That's why my "little list of current legislation is therefore" relevant. We know what happens in modern times because it's very well-recorded.
The thing that we know is different now is democracy. In the early 20th century we didn't have full democracy and women didn't have a choice but to protest in some way, peacefully or not.
PA live in times where we have full democracy. They have the choice to vote and if they don't like the outcome they have the human rights of assembly and expressing yourself.
If you don't like the outcome of any of that then you're kicking against a hard-won democracy; there are leaders around the world doing exactly that to get their way
To give you a modern example from the UK using modern laws; you don't have to think too far back to the Conservative plan to send migrants to Rwanda. Rejected by the nation, Parliament and the Courts, our democracy does work 🙂
Have the police really got nothing better to do that investigate people chanting Free Free Palestine and Death Death to the IDF?
As a critic of the plan to proscribe PA, I have no problems with chants for a free Palestine. Chants calling for the death of anyone I can't agree with, and I think may be a crime in itself, regardless of specific terrorism legislation.
Your example that women should have the right to vote is a good example of the interests of the nation in women's rights and full democracy v government.
The nation was so interested in women's rights that it took 200 years to give them a vote, mysteriously coinciding with a world war during which women's labour was needed to keep the country going.
PA live in times where we have full democracy. They have the choice to vote and if they don't like the outcome they have the human rights of assembly and expressing yourself.
You'll be shocked when someone tells you what happened to the JSO protesters, or more dramatically what happened on Bloody Sunday or at Orgreave (papers now shredded by the police, coincidentally before a potential inquiry). The right to protest is limited to the right to protest where you're (arbitrarily) told you can protest, so no marches past a (closed) synagogue if it aims to embarrass the BBC.
To give you a modern example from the UK using modern laws; you don't have to think too far back to the Conservative plan to send migrants to Rwanda. Rejected by the nation, Parliament and the Courts,
And interrupted by an election before the Safety of Rwanda Act (officially declaring Rwanda "safe") could come into operation, so I don't think your example shows what you say it shows. On the contrary - it shows that "safety", like "terrorism" is just a convenient word to be used to further the aims of the ruling class, whether that's the monarchy, the tech giants or the owners of the RAF.
Timba the question whether the criminal damage caused by Palestine Action is morally justified under present-day conditions and "modern laws" is quite different to the issue of whether Palestine Action should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.
Should those responsible for criminal damage be prosecuted? Many would say yes, and indeed their time in court is often desired by those who make personal sacrifices to highlight and publicise perceived injustices.
On the other hand should they be classed as terrorists and prosecuted under anti-terrorist legislation? Certainly not, and doing so is a gross abuse of anti-terrorist legislation, plus a very dangerous lurch towards authoritarianism.
This dangerous move by the current government seems to be widely opposed by most people outside the Tory and Reform parties, I would suggest reading again the powerful and compelling arguments made by the former chief constable of South Yorkshire and the Guardian editorial.
More frightening is the fact that it sets a precedence for the authoritarian wings of any future Reform/Tory governments of the future. And the future in this case might possibly be just 4 years away.
With each day that passes the Starmer government appears to be blurring more and more the distinctions between Tory, Labour, and Reform.
Should those responsible for criminal damage be prosecuted? Many would say yes
Many say yes, even when no damage is actually done (e.g. Stonehenge orange powder), so it seems that prosecution for criminal damage and the like are just more excuses for the state to suppress dissent.
Chants calling for the death of anyone I can't agree with, and I think may be a crime in itself, regardless of specific terrorism legislation.
Even death to Hamas?
And when you call for the death of an organisation it doesn't necessarily mean the death of an individual.
I see that immediately the lies came pouring out from the likes of Kemi Badenoch who instantly claimed that 'death to the IDF' was anti-jewish.
The IDF does not represent Jewish people and many members of the IDF are not Jewish or even Israeli, a few are actually Muslim.
Unlike Hamas which I suspect is 100% Palestinian. I guess calling for the destruction of Hamas could be seen as anti-Palestinian?
On the other hand should they be classed as terrorists and prosecuted under anti-terrorist legislation? Certainly not, and doing so is a gross abuse of anti-terrorist legislation, plus a very dangerous lurch towards authoritarianism.
When any of those things happen then I'll worry about it:
Proscription has got to go to Parliament (tomorrow, so get writing to your MP)
Police have made arrests, but nobody has been charged and certainly not prosecuted
Any abuse of anti-terrorist legislation will be aired and debated in Parliament, the Courts or both
A dangerous lurch to authoritarianism or an incompetent government? Either way they'll be out at the next GE, assuming the top table aren't hoofed out before then
Democracy has its problems, but we rely on it
And on that note, I'll wait for the results
Proscription has got to go to Parliament (tomorrow, so get writing to your MP)
Done.
Any abuse of anti-terrorist legislation will be aired and debated in Parliament, the Courts or both
And the media. This is an article against proscription from, of all places, the Telegraph!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/28/palestine-action-terrorists-brize-norton/
Even death to Hamas?
I'm fairly equitable about wanting not to kill people, except in self defence, which is not what the IDF are currently involved in.
Grey area calling for the "death" of an organisation, I accept that. Every country has a right to self defence, so a military is required.
I'm fairly equitable about wanting not to kill people, except in self defence
Well that's the point, the Palestinian resistance has a legitimate right enshrined under international law to violently resist illegal foreign occupation.
They don't have to right to commit war crimes but they do have the right to kill members of an occupation force. So in that respect it is perfectly acceptable to call for the death of foreign occupiers.
The problem appears to be that some people treat the IDF's occupation of Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, as legal, it isn't.
The IDF's activities in the occupied territories are not legal under international law and the Geneva Convention.
Any abuse of anti-terrorist legislation will be aired and debated in Parliament, the Courts or both
Funny that claim because anti terrorism legislation has been and continues to be abused to stifle dissent with no outcry
Well this made me chuckle:
We were car #2 in a 4 car sandwich this afternoon. Car #4 held his hands up to hitting the guy behind us and shunting us into the other guy.
While chatting about hire cars, car #4 said he cycled to work at Brize Norton. I asked him if just cut the fence to get in.
Chilling effect of plans to proscribe PA. Your “democracy” in action.
Have the police really got nothing better to do that investigate people chanting Free Free Palestine and Death Death to the IDF?
As a critic of the plan to proscribe PA, I have no problems with chants for a free Palestine. Chants calling for the death of anyone I can't agree with, and I think may be a crime in itself, regardless of specific terrorism legislation.
I find the words of 'Bob Vylan' really quite depressing ( I also note the irony of an act naming themselves after an artist who has performed in Israel several times). Because whilst I totally understand the anger towards the Israeli state and military, shouting 'death, death to the IDF' is just naive, ignorant, crass and unintelligent. Also, if you are supposedly calling for 'peace', why would you then wish death upon other human beings? I find many of these outspoken 'celebrities' to be utter hypocrites when it comes to such matters. Whilst I don't believe such chants are tantamount to 'terrorism', I don't believe they are at all constructive or helpful. Shouting out 'up Hamas and up Hezbollah is also very stupid; it shoes just how ignorant many people actually are regarding the whole issue. Both are organisations full of evil people; expressing support for such is condoning rape, torture and murder. Just because 'the other side' do that and much worse, does not make it ok to support such extremist organisations. Hamas, let's not forget, raped, tortured and murdered innocent people on October 7th 2023, and whilst we can of course feel sympathy with a people who have every right to defend themselves, what took place that day was way beyond any justification. And so was the genocide that followed. That young Kneecap lad might think he's cool and 'edgy' by calling out in support of Hamas and Hezbollah, but in reality he's an ignorant dick. And now, so is Bob Vylan. And anyone else who thinks chanting ignorant hateful shit is cool. Oh look at you with your 'Free Palestine' stickers. You're so on fleek.
For context: as I mentioned earlier, I have family in Israel. At least one member is currently serving in the IDF reserves. But beyond that, he's just an ordinary lad like many millions across the Globe. Something people need to understand about the IDF and Israel, is that there, military service is compulsory for all Israeli citizens (not, as suggested here, non-Israelis). And yes, that includes Muslims, Christians Buddhists and atheists. You don't have a choice in Israel, you have to do your service. Refusal generally leads to jail, and the subsequent ostracisation from society. The vast majority of Israelis see it as their duty to serve. Calling for 'death, death to the IDF' is calling for death for people I love. So yeah; I am gonna be somewhat subjective. By contrast, the UK and US militaries are volunteer staffed. I know many people who have served in the IDF, most of them decent people. And pretty much all abhor what is going on right now. And there are prominent officers in the IDF who condemn the orders of the state. So it is not black and white; there is nuance, something many people just don't get.
I also have many friends from Palestine, Lebanon and much of the Middle East, and Iran. Most Iranians I know welcomed the recent attacks by Israel, as they wish to see regime change.They are mainly political refugees here, and would be murdered if they were to return home. Many have not seen family members in years, even decades. Again, it's not black and white. Nuance. Yes, we all condemn the killing of innocents in any war or conflict. The military action by Israel, USA and by complicity, the UK, is utterly reprehensible. The snivelling cowardice shown by our prime minister is morally repugnant. But it's vital, if you really are concerned with trying to create any sort of lasting peace, to not dehumanise anybody, regardless of which side their on. That means showing empathy not just for Hamas and Hezbollah, but for ordinary young Israelis who are used as pawns in a much wider and terrifying game. It is very clear to anyone who applies a modicum of intelligence to current world events, that people are being turned against each other through propaganda, lies and deceit. Muslims and Jews are pitted against each other, hatred is whipped up, and we have to ask who exactly this serves. There is no 'Jewish Conspiracy', there is no 'Threat from Islam'; the real threat is from those who seek to profit form such division and hatred. Follow the money, and you'll fine a lot of very 'respectable' people behind all this. Who will hail from all sorts of cultures and faiths. Who exploit already existing religious fundamentalism to fuel more wars. And they are being aided and abetted by our politicians who are actually elected to serve OUR interests as a society; it us down to us to show collective outrage, resistance and dissent. I have no issue with people chanting '**** Kier Starmer', as I had no issue with people at the same event shouting '**** the government and **** Boris'. Our leaders must answer to the people; if Starmer thinks he has the public on his side, he is very much mistaken.
In short; our real enemies are no those with whom we actually share so much in common; it's those who seek to divide us. Don't get sucked into playing their games. Save your hatred for those who really call the shots.
There's a lot in your post, and thanks for taking the time to time to write it down. I agree with your conclusion that
In short; our real enemies are no those with whom we actually share so much in common; it's those who seek to divide us.
but just to respond to a small part,
Calling for 'death, death to the IDF' is calling for death for people I love
this is not true, despite being the interpretation broadcast by the BBC on their lunchtime news bulletin. The "death of the IDF" is not the same as the death of individual members, just as calling for the end of Israel as an apartheid state is not the same as calling for the death of individual Israelis. I think in another post someone mentioned a Tory politician (Rab Butler) talks about the "death of Labour". 'Death' is a metaphor.
Regarding the predicament of Israelis with respect to military service, it's hard to have much sympathy. They live on stolen land and take the benefits of that. If they really had a moral objection to doing what they do, they would have made other choices long ago.
Everyone appears to be calling what has been happening in Gaza for the last 20 months a "war" but apparently it is only acceptable for one side to do the killing!
Do we understand what war actually means? It's about two sides causing death and destruction until one side is overwhelmed.
The current UK government has decided to back one side in this war, Israel, and it is apparently perfectly okay for them to help Israel cause death and destruction to Palestine.
I on the other hand support Palestine, since when has the UK government been able to decide who I can personally support in the Palestine-Israel conflict?
Just like the UK government wants Israel to prevail in this conflict I want Palestine to prevail, if Palestine had managed to cause sufficient death and destruction to Israel this war would have been over. The only reason it is carrying on unabated is because Israel has had such low casualties.
Given a choice between a dead Palestinian or a dead Israeli Sir Keir Starmer would very clearly prefer a dead Palestinian. I on the other hand would prefer a dead Israeli.
I base my conclusion on the fact that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine and under international law it is perfectly legal to violently oppose foreign occupation, my position in rooted in legality.
Sir Keir Starmer's position on the other hand is rooted in illegality - the illegal occupation of Palestine.
So is this a "war" as the media constantly tells us that it is or not? I have never heard of a war where only one side is expected to do the killing.
MOD - If you wish to discuss the wider subject of Gaza, do it in the main thread. This one is specifically about what happened on the base.
Some people got through a fence and painted some planes
/end
Well, they used paint to try and put a jet engine out of action.
Well, they used paint to try and put a jet engine out of action.
Which is criminal damage. Let's be honest, if that's terrorism, the RAF will run out of planes before PA run out of paint.
That's good - but if I'm honest I can't see that the judge will find in the favour of PA, because no matter what the 'real' definition of terrorism is, it meets the legal one.
I hope I'm wrong
Which is criminal damage. Let's be honest, if that's terrorism, the RAF will run out of planes before PA run out of paint.
I think it’s highly likely the RAF run out of planes long before any diy shed or car paint shop runs out of paint. We don’t actually have that many aircraft in the RAF
but if I'm honest I can't see that the judge will find in the favour of PA, because no matter what the 'real' definition of terrorism is, it meets the legal one.
Yeah that's the problem, which is why the Terrorism Act 2000 should be repealed. Until 25 years ago the UK didn't have any permanent anti-terrorist legislation, just some temporary measures to deal with the Troubles, and those temporary measures had to be regularly reapproved by Parliament.
Terrorism in the UK is a very small problem, relatively speaking, which is totally overblown by the media and exploited by politicians for their own agendas. More people are murdered in Croydon in one year than die from terrorism in the whole of the UK.
Reactionary politicians the world over love the spectre of terrorism because it is used to scare the population, justify repressive measures, whip up patriotism, and is used as excuses to go to war.
Standard criminal law can deal with any incidents of terrorism, as it did until recently. There is no reason to give someone who is motivated by politics any less rights than a serial killer.
And right now we are seeing how open to abuse by governments it is.
There's a lot in your post, and thanks for taking the time to time to write it down. I agree with your conclusion that
In short; our real enemies are no those with whom we actually share so much in common; it's those who seek to divide us.
but just to respond to a small part,
Calling for 'death, death to the IDF' is calling for death for people I love
this is not true, despite being the interpretation broadcast by the BBC on their lunchtime news bulletin. The "death of the IDF" is not the same as the death of individual members, just as calling for the end of Israel as an apartheid state is not the same as calling for the death of individual Israelis. I think in another post someone mentioned a Tory politician (Rab Butler) talks about the "death of Labour". 'Death' is a metaphor.
Well, that's simply your own interpretation, doesn't make it any less 'true' for millions of Israelis. You're just applying your own form of revisionism to the argument. All my IDF-served Israeli friends (none of whom support the Israeli government or the genocide) think it's offensive. You don't get to decide what others find offensive. That's the problem with just shouting out ignorant vitriol.
Also, there is an awful lot of misunderstanding and lack of awareness of how antisemitism manifests. In this case, the IDF is formed only of Jewish Israeli citizens (Arab Israelis are exempt from service), and a very tiny number of Druze Christian and Circassian Muslim men. so in this sense, shouting 'death to the IDF' is in essence antisemitic, even if those shouting it are unaware of this fact, and are not themselves antisemites. The Glastonbury event organisation have themselves condemned the chants as antisemitic. Flip it round, and many have condemned the chanting of 'death to Arabs' in demonstrations in Israel and even here int he UK (shouted in Hebrew which seems to get round scrutiny by police). So by your logic, is that also just 'metaphorical'? It's important to condemn racism and prejudice equivocally. Anything else is hypocritical.
Personally. I don't think the chants warrant anything more than a commitment by 'offenders' to be less offensive, and maybe become better educated. I think a lot of the vitriol being expressed is coming from a good place, but is misguided and often misplaced. There just needs to be more understanding and empathy, and less hatred. The faux outrage expressed by some who condemn the chants is brought into sharp perspective by their seeming unwillingness to condemn genocide. Statements by discredited organisations such as the Board of Deputies and the CAA are little more than an attempt to distract from what's really going on. I such organisations were genuinely committed to peace as they claims, they'd be condemning the genocide as much as any other decent human beings. Yet they don't appear to be doing so.
Regarding the predicament of Israelis with respect to military service, it's hard to have much sympathy. They live on stolen land and take the benefits of that. If they really had a moral objection to doing what they do, they would have made other choices long ago.
Using terms like 'stolen land' is pointless; are you going to equally cry the same for the whole of the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc? It's also pointless because Israel is a state recognised under international law (as is Palestine). Most Israelis are born there. So should they not have the same rights to statehood as anyone else, including the Palestinians?
Your comments just read as ignorance and hateful. To state 'they would have made other choices long ago'; what you actually mean is that they should leave, don't you? None of the Israelis I know, either in the UK or in Israel, live or have lived in any of the illegal settlements. So you would deny them the same birthright you demand for Palestinians? Remember that there were Jews living in that area for a very long time before the British decided to divvy up the land. So where are Jews meant to go if they should make 'other choices'? Any suggestions?
Using terms like 'stolen land' is pointless; are you going to equally cry the same for the whole of the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc?
It would be if Israel had stayed within its 1947 agreed borders. But it hasn’t. It has occupied land that is not its for 50+ years. I completely agree Israel has every right to exist in international law but only within those agreed borders
DELETED - comment by moderators noted.
Mod - thanks. Final warning to the rest of you. Keep on topic or the thread will be closed.
There are emergency screenings of this planned throughout the country before the government bans it
https://tokillawarmachine.com/#ScreeningsSection
I don't about other areas but the screening this Thursday at 7pm at Croydon Sports Arena is free
I'm not sure if this is wise in light of the impending vote to classify them as a terrorist organisation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czryyej6dk6o
Notice how neatly they mention in a report about PA's actions that the site has been ram-raided, when the group don't actually appear to mentioned in that report on the ram-raiding incident.
Well - that's embarrassing. On further investigation, it looks like it WAS them.
the group don't actually appear to mentioned in that report on the ram-raiding incident
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vmjjxvj0eo
If I disagree with your post can I express my disagreement by smashing up your car/flat in a peaceful manner?
No - because there is no justification for that. However there is a general principle in UK law that you can commit a crime to prevent a bigger one or to preserve life - the doctrine of necessity. this defense has been removed from protestors simply because it was successful.
So under the doctrine of necessity you can commit a crime to prevent a crime so long as its minimum needed and proportionate - unless you are a protestor when following recent legislation you cannot
The example often used is a criminal in jail can escape from that jail if it is on fire to preserve their life.
You can also forcibly prevent someone from committing a crime even tho that force would be normally an assault
Elbit Systems UK has previously denied that the facility supplies the Israeli military with arms.
A spokesperson said: "Any claims that this facility supplies the Israeli military or Israeli Ministry of Defence are categorically false."
Wtf?? Are they being smart-arses over the precise definition of "arms"??
"Elbit Systems Ltd. is an Israel-based international military technology company and defense contractor"
Elbit supplies the Israeli military with 85% of their drones and land-based equipment, as well as electronic warfare systems.
Elbit is very obviously a vital component to Israeli terrorist activities in Occupied Palestine, even if not all of their products** are destined for Israel, and therefore a perfectly legitimate target.
Edit : ** produced in the UK
385 for 26 against
I have never understood why in situations like this PA can not just rebrand and become "Action for Palestine"
I guess it's the group that's proscribed not the name
385 for 26 against
That is utterly depressing.
I guess it's the group that's proscribed not the name
But how do you define the group? Its not individuals that have been proscribed
I guess it's the group that's proscribed not the name
But how do you define the group? Its not individuals that have been proscribed
No idea. Maybe the members and aim of the group can be used legally to determine despite a name change it's the same group. But... Honestly... I've no idea
385 for 26 against
That is utterly depressing.
Yep
385 for 26 against
Appalling but probably not surprising.
My Wife and I watched the first episode of Netflix's 7/7 bombings documentary yesterday evening, that shows real terrorism, utterly horrific. One of the problems cited for the attack not being picked up & stopped was the fact that MI5 & the counter terrorism police were too small & had too many people on their radar to surveil & track them all. Now it appears, they're going to have to manage organisations & people who embarrass the government as well.
When any of those things happen then I'll worry about it:
Proscription has got to go to Parliament (tomorrow, so get writing to your MP)
Worried yet ?
One of the problems cited for the attack not being picked up & stopped was the fact that MI5 & the counter terrorism police were too small & had too many people on their radar to surveil & track them all. Now it appears, they're going to have to manage organisations & people who embarrass the government as well.
There is no reason to assume that MI5 are daft enough to consider Palestine Action to be actual "terrorists" so presumably they won't waste precious resources worrying about them.
The advantage for the government of proscribing Palestine Action as terrorists is quite simply that the Crown won't have to prove in court any criminality caused individuals whatsoever, just proving they are members of Palestine Action will be sufficient to lock them up.
The defence used by Starmer successfully when he was a lefty lawyer that it is lawful to cause criminal damage if it is to stop a greater crime being committed will become totally meaningless.
This is a hugely dangerous step but in keeping with a lurch away from liberal values in much of the Western world and a greater embrace of authoritarianism.
Quite what the Reform-Tory government will do in four years as a follow on act after Labour is anyone's guess. But I certainly expect them to expand on Labour's logic to include all sorts of protests groups.
And perhaps even go beyond the "any group which causes criminal damage is terrorist" to perhaps "any group which causes public inconvenience is a terrorist organisation".
After all if politicians are going to redefine the word "terrorist" to suit their own personal agendas then the only limit is their imagination. I am sure that Nigel Farage has his own personal Idea of what a terrorist is, and we will probably find out after he becomes prime minister.