Perhaps we need an intermediate form of proscribing for organisations that have no intention of abiding by the law, with lesser sanctions, to deal with non-terrorist dickheads. I'm open to that. But no one gets a free pass for serious illegality just because they think their cause is just. 3/3
Wrong.
Do you mean like the draconian anti-protest laws the Tory government passed to try and kerb environmental protests? 7 years for blocking a motorway? That sort of thing?
That seems like a good idea. I worry about Palestinian Action being labelled a terrorist group because we'll get "headlines like 45 marchers arrested for supporting terrorist group", which will be innocently or cynically misconstrued by some to suggest those arrested supported Hamas or Hizzbullah
Yes. I was just thinking of this horrible case (sympathy for the cause none for the means), where the intention was self-evidently to terrorise but the charges weren’t of terrorism: www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/...? I’m no expert on the law; is there an obligation to prosecute PA as terrorism?
I missed the legal subtlety of your post - govt may be entitled but not obliged to proscribe them - and maybe better not to in this case?
Yes, I’m no expert. The more I think about it the more I can see that in someone’s mind Brize Norton was an “OK, no”. Which still might not have been the right move politically but I can perceive a logic that breaking into an airforce base is potentially not *just* property damage.
Right. I went the other way. I can see the national security part is more serious but I also assume there were also laws for that sort of thing. It was the broadening of targets that felt more like intimidation through threat of damage to property, and therefore my analogy.
It's a criminal act that gets prosecuted as such, no? The animal rights activist you can possibly make the case that the intended effect then was similar to terrorism. But that's untenable for PA. bsky.app/profile/adsq...
looking at the Act as drafted, it seems clear that they *can* prosecute under terrorism. Because terrorism can = "damage to property" + "political aim". I wonder if they *have* to. the law is only ever an approximation of justice, of course. there seems a feeling we need a better law for this.
Aren't people also simply ignoring the fact that what they are accused of is slightly more serious in other cases - e.g. violent disorder? That's not in court till next month - so we don't know details and if stands up yet - but "they are non-violent, just sprayed planes" may or may not look silly.
It's helpful to separate out what we're talking about (and which voices). Violent disorder is a more serious offence. But it's still unclear why in their case it should be treated differently to violent disorder in Epping - arguably also for a political (anti-immigrant) end.
Well a group with those goals - MMC - proscribed alongside them. I don't think one can say the response to last year's anti-immigrant rioting was lenient. Don't think are of the same order. But not the point - which is that what PA are accused of is a bit more serious than would like to claim.
No, that wasn't my point. It's the legal distinction for *expressing support for* groups that carry out acts that damage property. (Maniacs Murder Cult are a violent group that targets people. But for most others involved in anti-immigrant rioting, it is not illegal to express support for them)
Essentially: "worse than spray painting a bridge, not as bad as plotting to murder Jewish children in new York" is something we can all agree on, but that's a sufficiently wide range that it doesn't get us very far. (Also: I think Reform would take offence at being told MMC "shared their aims"...)
I didn't mention Reform at all - you mentioned the violent disorder in Epping. Clearly MMC share the aims of people who support or carry out violence against immigrants, as it's an explicit desire of theirs.
I think the difficulty here and why talk past each other is that in PA fall into a difficult area. Those claiming they are non-violent are ignoring the fact members are facing violent charges. So meet a legal definition and is hardly an outrage - but one that may be unwise to rigidly apply.
I'm taking "anti-immigration" as the political goal (whether or not it involves violence) which rioters in Epping and Reform both share, no? MMCs aims included plot to poison (non-immigrant) Jewish children. Don't seem to have specifically anti-immigration goals (tho I'm sure they're not pro!)
the suggestion I think is that the Home Sec is asking to bring sealed evidence into the case (not sure I've got the correct terminology there) because there may be something more serious that would be a security risk to publicise. I don't know if that's true or not.
I get it that "breaking into an RAF base" (potential very serious security breach, especially if sharing how they did it to other 'cells') is a very different level of thing to "spray-painting a building in Cambridge" (merely property damage that does not actually help any suffering person in Gaza)
this is absolute rank speculation and linking together of things that may not be linked but it's in my mind that apparently the new way for states to act against other states is... just pay low-level criminals to go and do some property destruction? www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/teen...
it is a strange time in the world. it may very well be that none of my speculation here is correct and the British government is stupidly muzzling a criminal-damage-but-not-terrorist protest group. it does seem that "broke into an RAF base" was a red line.
I guess the thought experiment is: suppose they did that for non-political reasons? (To sell to a foreign govt or something). They themselves would obvs face very serious sanctions. But would public legally be allowed to show support if we wanted?
Yep, that's a different thing again of course. Although the "showing support for" then becomes even more of a mess - because by definition members of the public showing support would not be aware of the nature of the sealed evidence for why it's bad to support them.
"not obvious but not obviously stupid" feels basically correct under the law, but I think *not good politics*. but Starmer is of course a good lawyer and perhaps not a specially good politician. politically it feels like an own goal. (and I think PA's actions are at *best* totally ineffective)
rather as with Kneecap, the very best thing anyone can do in favour of 'the cause' is try to ban them, because of the massive burst of publicity.
Yup under the act it is technically correct but in reality they are idiot arseholes not terrorists
Yes, agree. It's the combination of "illegal *to show support for*" and "damage to property now counts". If - working backwards - 20 yrs ago you said "shall we make it illegal even to show support for groups who damage property to make a political point" I don't think we'd have said "sure!".
This thought experiment is making me waver a bit. But I don't know enough about the allegations against PA to know if this is a reasonable legal (not moral!) analogy bsky.app/profile/adsq...
This aspect in particular bsky.app/profile/adsq...
Imagine if, 40 years ago, we'd called anyone who waved an Irish tricolour a terrorist... (some did). Yvette Cooper has created a monster.
Prosecutors can charge what they like in practice. And especially not charge at their discretion.
Yes. People and groups cannot ignore the law without consequence just because they think they're morally right. All groups believe that. Arguments must be won through persuasion, not violence or intimidation. But I'm queasy about labelling direct action as terrorism; a different term would help.
It’s criminal damage, though, and there is a law to deal with that. Calling it terrorism is a massive overreach. It’s nothing like terrorism to spray paint on a plane.
Which meant the plane was taken out of service. For what? For a war we are not involved in. It's performative nonsense. Frankly I don't care that a group acting so irresponsibly has been sanctioned You can protest about Gaza without damaging RAF defence aircraft
For a war we're not involved in? Are you serious?
Of course we're not. There are no UK troops in Gaza.
And you don't think the British government has provided weapons as well as surveillance and intelligence support? That's very naive.
I very much Israel - with the full on backing of the USA - needs weapons, surveillance or intelligence from the UK I think Israel is ok without us But don't let me stop your conspiracy theory...
British military flights have been logged over Israel from Cyprus. And why do you think Lammy cancelled certain military export licences if we aren't supplying military hardware to Israel?
So the Government blocked military export licences to Israel, but the Government is complicit in supporting Israel 😒 Yeah, okay Where's any evidence that the UK is supplying military hardware? Your assertion backs up the idea its not
They cancelled SOME military export licences to Israel in order to pretend they were opposed to genocide. Something that clearly doesn't bother you.
If we look back on history, would we now be declaring the "Greenham common women's peace camp" a terrorist organisation? www.greenhamwpc.org.uk
The Greenham women were protesting about British defence policy in the deployment of nuclear cruise missiles on British soil Palestine Action are 'protesting' about genocide in a foreign war that the UK is not engaged in & most people hope will stop It's spurious to compare the two
If all PA were doing was protesting by setting up a camp somewhere then it wouldn't be a problem. The core distinction is not the cause but the methods.
Absolutely. However, I think there is a world of difference between what the Greenham women were doing and what Palestine Action are doing and comparisons between the two are spurious Fwiw, I didn't agree with them either...
No. Because there's no threat involved, implicit or direct, and no use of violence against people or property.
They did cut fences.
Pretty trivial in the scheme of things. It was not damage designed to influence policy by the disruption and cost it caused.
I think we all know the answer the that question.
That's not taking account of context. Criminal damage *with intent to influence the political system and under threat of future acts* is subverting the democratic process through violence - against property, sure, but still violence. Call it something else but it's still a criminal conspiracy.
It follows that people who publicly support a group engaged in criminality should be at risk of arrest too for incitement. Any fair political system has to protect the rights of all. Illegal direct action can, sometimes, be justified when people are denied civil rights. That's not the case here.
No it doesn't follow. By that definition anyone saying "Free Tommy Robinson" should be prosecuted for incitement too. Incitement has a specific meaning.
I think anybody who talks this nonsense should be arrested for inciting Nazism.
Be quiet, Judge Dredd.
The usage of "proscription" over the last 20 years has been a lot narrower than "criminality". Whether you feel that this is justified or unjustified sort of illegal direct action, applying it to that is a major shift (in legislation that was already a significant departure).
My most prescriptivist belief is that damage to property is not violence; the legislation lists violence and property damage separately
It lists violence *against a person* and property damage separately. But as I say, I'm not overly fussed about the terminology and classification as long as both forms can be dealt with.
Isn't "violence against the person" classic legal redundancy? Are there good examples in legislation of violence against anything else? Animals, possibly, which is relevant for suffragettes
There are statutes which refer to violence against property: eg the Public Order Act 1986, the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Policing and Crime Act 1989, the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022 and the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
That said, the default meaning seems to be that "violence" requires a risk of physical injury. E.g. R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [1977] 1 WLR 135 held that criminal damage to a gas main was a "crime of violence" for purposes of criminal injury compensation...
...but only because it carried a sufficient risk of injury to another person.
As far as national statistics go this also holds where eg criminal damage is not reported as 'violent crime'.
thanks!
This is a summary of the govt’s position. (The whole judgment is worth reading, it’s very measured.) bsky.app/profile/alas...
Surely it can also be argued that the Israeli Government is committing terrorist acts against innocent Palestinians. As the UK Government continues to allow the sale of weaponry to Israel, aren't they too complicit in terrorism?
Governments are typically not labelled as terrorists, or Russia probably would be. Governments are dealt with differently.
But they have done more than this. I'm still 50:50 about them being terrorists, but they have used violence against people, praised assassinations and targeted places based on religion. (Eg a Jewish charity). Some of this is from their USA offshoot, but they arent just peaceful protestors.
I agree with your circumspection. There is a line and PA are pushing it. Have they crossed over into terrorism? Possibly, but I am skeptical. Judicial overreach is all too easy.
Proscribing Palestine Action was not judicial overreach. It was a decision by Parliament
There’s laws to deal with all of terrorism. Rightly or wrongly terrorism was defined as serious violence or property damage with the aim of changing govt policy. I think there’s a good argument to either abolish it as laws cover the crimes, or split property and people apart. But the law is the law.
Whilst the law is the law, let us also not forget that under Netanyahu, Israel is committing genocide and war crimes on a hourly basis. Israel under Netanyahu is a terrorist state. It is unconscionable that the UK government is supporting & arming terrorists. But sure, let's arrest 80 year olds.
They aren’t doing that though. I know you want to feel you can impact an atrocity happening across the world by protesting here but the reality is no one can seemingly stop them. So all you’re doing is making a Reform govt who fully back Israel more likely. Just bad tactics.
Could you clarify who you mean by "They" when you say "They aren't doing that"?
Criminal damage masquerading as political protest
It's both. Whether the protest is effective or likely to work isn't something that needs to be considered. The point is the intent.
"Arguments must be won through persuasion" sounds great in principle. But most people are effectively silenced. And Starmer is complicit in this. Indeed, he seems enthusiastic about abolishing all the protests he doesn't like.
Power has never done anything good on the basis of 'persuasion'. Power cares not for justice, only for power. Power only responds to force. Signed A postcolonial nation
"People and groups cannot ignore the law without consequence just because they think they're morally right. " I would challenge that. Most of our advances in civil liberties came about because people chose to follow morality over legality. Suffragettes were a classic example.
The suffragettes put the cause of women's votes back, and then abandoned the cause before it was complete. Good PR department though. The suffragists did far more for women's votes. Similarly, the extensions of the male franchise in 1832, 1867, 1884 and 1918 were achieved peacefully.
Re-writing history. The Suffragists mattered, but so did the Suffragettes. Peterloo, Tolpuddle etc - not exactly 'peacably'.
Like I said, the Suffragettes put the cause of women's votes back. There was a majority in cabinet in favour of the move after 1905 but those opposed were successful in arguing that they should not be seen to give in to Suffragette militantism.
And, of course, the Suffragettes quit the field as soon as older middle class women like themselves had the vote, and left poorer twenty-somethings - and their allies - to fend for themselves. They were a selfish, ineffective movement more interested in their own feelings than practical outcomes.
As for Tolpuddle, Peterloo etc the crucial thing is that it was *not* violent protest that achieved reform: these were peaceable movements. Ditto Chartists etc. And even more crucially, we today have rights they did not. To resort to violence and direct action now is nothing more than bullying.
National are actually a white supremacy organisation though. PA want to stop a genocide such a non equivalence. It was obviously criminal but not terrorist or terrorist adjacent. Unless you are completely changing the meaning of terrorism.
In relation to prohibition laws UK(etc)government is literally a terrorist regime just like the Taliban. Every branch of law enforcement(police/customs/navy etc) are terrorists. This is an immutable fact. In relation to Palestine Action, it was vandalism at the most, against a genocidal government,
so imho their actions were far less than the terrorist Uk regime and their terrorist foot soldiers who should all be tried in the Hague. Going down the route of vandalism isn’t my cup of tea, but it could be described as a heroic act in the face of adversity against genocidal war criminal terrorists
No we don’t.
What „free pass“ were they getting previously do explain ?
The "free pass" is what their supporters want them to have. No idea what PA want, but they would be more useful as peace activists in Israel
They are trying to get the British government to stop supporting a genocide
So not "Action" but "inaction"? They want someone else to do something. How very middle class of them. Why don't they act as human shields in Israel protecting aid convoys from Settlers? That would be useful action
They aren’t in Israel theyre here. We are supposed to be a free country that acts proportionately and sensibly rather than excessively like a dictatorship. Appropriate offences for appropriate matters.
If they want to do vandalism then at least do it to the actual machines involved. But they are not. They are petulant children who cannot be bothered to travel to Israel.
The dictionary definition of ‘terrorism’ is violence or threat of violence against civilians, designed to bring about political change. The UK government’s definition of terrorism is far wider than that, & includes ‘damage to property’. This is not ‘terrorism’ as most people would define the word.
"dictionary definition", or your reading if it? Most definitions of terrorism include acts against government (and we have a legally elected government). Anyway I would prefer that PA are proscribed as knobheads, because they have achieved nothing and don't even have the balls to say who they are.
And do remember that it is "the people" who have to pay for the damage done by the PA knobheads, so yes, they are affecting the population. I would prefer that £6m to be spent on community nurses, but maybe you think we don't need them?
First of all, drop the sneering, patronising tone. I’m not a child & im not stupid. Ok. Secondly, ‘affecting the population’ by costing them money is NOT terrorism. By your rationale, anyone who vandalises public property is a terrorist. Thirdly, that figure quoted for repairs is ludicrous.
Very few people are arguing that PA shouldn’t be prosecuted. What they did was a serious crime, maybe even sabotage (up to life in prison).
The complaint is about proscribing them as “terrorist”. There’s no need to do that to punish them for their “serious illegality”. Stretching the Terrorism Act to proscribe “criminal damage with a cause” is well beyond how it was presented in parliament.
And doing so because a TON of money is flowing into UK politics from Tel Aviv is a real problem.
That’s where we part ways I’m afraid. There’s undoubtedly money flowing into UK politics from all sorts, and it’s a problem. I don’t need that to explain Labour being authoritarian though, that’s always been part of their position.
Also a fair point
But 1) terrorism laws are so draconian they should be used sparingly, they limit public debate. There's a pros and cons argument I can't give here. 2) there's already laws covering all of the illegal actions. 3) people deserve to know when a group is a threat to their lives, this muddies the waters.
So on that basis you’re ok with the Israeli government being dragged to The Hague?
Yep, it's like the Environment protestors. I agree with and applaud motives of both, but knowingly breaking into and damaging equipment, or blocking motorways or damaging artwork, knowing the penalties, doesn't get a free pass, any more than Tommy Robinson's goons should.
The issue is not about a free pass for criminal behaviour. It is the debasement of the term terrorism and charging people holding a placard with a terrorist offence. It is a stupid move by a PM in thrall to the Chief McWanker.
...and that balanced, sensitive description of the PM encapsulates perfectly why some of us hesitate to throw our lot in with the tactics of those whose objectives we support
I seem to have been paying close attention for rather longer than you have. I've done the balanced sensitive thing. I am now at the end of my tether with the recurring incompetence and lack of political nous. I suggest you get off the fence before you don't have a fence left to sit on.
I sincerely doubt that. I am quite happy to make my own assessments, and to avoid collaboration with people who think insults and childish memes are the way to garner support
I don't need your support, but thank you for the conditional offer. I am sure you will find many like minds to reassure you.
Between free pass and prosecuting „I support Palestine. Action must be taken” is an ocean of options.
But they were prosecuted. This is just performative bollocks to create new offences.
Re free passes. All those supporting the banning of PA celebrate other groups who commit/committed acts of serious illegality because they agree their cause is/was just.