Proscription of Palestine Action overturned
Discussion
From the BBC:
"The High Court said that when the former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper decided to ban the organisation last June, she had failed to first take into account what impact that decision would have on the right to protest.
They also said she had not fully followed her own policies regarding the test for when an organisation should be proscribed under the Terrorism Act.
Prior to the ban, the group’s volunteers had been breaking into arms firms linked to Israel, leading to charges of criminal damage.
Terrorism legislation permits ministers to ban a group which causes serious damage to property in order to further their cause.
The High Court ruled that the organisation had no human rights defence to those incidents.
But the judge said that a critical issue in the case was whether the ban was impacting the rights of others to protest in support of Palestinian issues.
“We accept that the fact of proscription and the heavy penalties for [terrorism offences] will mean that it is reasonable to expect people to be risk averse, to adjust their behaviour and to avoid doing things that run any significant risk that they might commit any of those criminal offences,” Dame Victoria Sharp said.
The judges said that while “a very small number” of Palestine Action’s activities met the legal test for acts of terrorism, the standard criminal law could be used to confront the group."
I think this is the right decision (though the Home Sec has said the Govt will appeal). Vandalising military aircraft could in some circumstances be terrorism, but the consequence of proscription being that sitting down in Parliament Square, holding a piece of Amazon packaging that says "I support Palestine Action", becomes a terrorist offence is, IMHO, mad and oppressive.
"The High Court said that when the former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper decided to ban the organisation last June, she had failed to first take into account what impact that decision would have on the right to protest.
They also said she had not fully followed her own policies regarding the test for when an organisation should be proscribed under the Terrorism Act.
Prior to the ban, the group’s volunteers had been breaking into arms firms linked to Israel, leading to charges of criminal damage.
Terrorism legislation permits ministers to ban a group which causes serious damage to property in order to further their cause.
The High Court ruled that the organisation had no human rights defence to those incidents.
But the judge said that a critical issue in the case was whether the ban was impacting the rights of others to protest in support of Palestinian issues.
“We accept that the fact of proscription and the heavy penalties for [terrorism offences] will mean that it is reasonable to expect people to be risk averse, to adjust their behaviour and to avoid doing things that run any significant risk that they might commit any of those criminal offences,” Dame Victoria Sharp said.
The judges said that while “a very small number” of Palestine Action’s activities met the legal test for acts of terrorism, the standard criminal law could be used to confront the group."
I think this is the right decision (though the Home Sec has said the Govt will appeal). Vandalising military aircraft could in some circumstances be terrorism, but the consequence of proscription being that sitting down in Parliament Square, holding a piece of Amazon packaging that says "I support Palestine Action", becomes a terrorist offence is, IMHO, mad and oppressive.
Yeah but no but
People knew holding up a sign with Palestinian Action would be terrorism, once prescribed.
They could have held up a sign with "careful now" etc but chose not to.
Not sure on whether prescription was right or not, but trying to make out it stopped any protesting on behalf of the Palestinians is daft imo.
Will people moan about the high court in the same way they did when they overturned Doris's prorouging? I wonder...
People knew holding up a sign with Palestinian Action would be terrorism, once prescribed.
They could have held up a sign with "careful now" etc but chose not to.
Not sure on whether prescription was right or not, but trying to make out it stopped any protesting on behalf of the Palestinians is daft imo.
Will people moan about the high court in the same way they did when they overturned Doris's prorouging? I wonder...
BlackTails said:
But the judge said that a critical issue in the case was whether the ban was impacting the rights of others to protest in support of Palestinian issues.
Interesting bit of logic there.People were - and are - clearly free to protest about Palestinian issues.
The issue here was about an organisation that used 'Palestine' in its name, and support for that organisation, and it's quite a leap to conflate the two.
It's like trying argue there's an overlap between supporting Islamic State as an organisation, or Islam as a general topic, and suggesting the latter is constrained by a ban on the former.
I'm not really sure that this holds water.
Ian Geary said:
Yeah but no but
People knew holding up a sign with Palestinian Action would be terrorism, once prescribed.
They could have held up a sign with "careful now" etc but chose not to.
Not sure on whether prescription was right or not, but trying to make out it stopped any protesting on behalf of the Palestinians is daft imo.
Will people moan about the high court in the same way they did when they overturned Doris's prorouging? I wonder...
Problem was the plod ended up arresting anyone using "Palestinian" or "Palestine" in their protest sign using the proscribed terrorist group speel.People knew holding up a sign with Palestinian Action would be terrorism, once prescribed.
They could have held up a sign with "careful now" etc but chose not to.
Not sure on whether prescription was right or not, but trying to make out it stopped any protesting on behalf of the Palestinians is daft imo.
Will people moan about the high court in the same way they did when they overturned Doris's prorouging? I wonder...
T6 vanman said:
Tell that to Police Sergeant Kate Evans attacked in Bristol's Elbit Systems factory.
Just because a jury doesn't convict people doesn't mean the law is wrong or inadequate, especially where the prosecution fails to come up with evidence to support the charges brought.IMO the government is crazy to keep pursuing the proscription of Palestine Action. They may sometimes cross into the modern UK definition of "terrorism" by damaging government property but that's hardly comparable with the bombings, shootings, kidnappings and hijackings of traditional terrorist groups.
Panamax said:
T6 vanman said:
Tell that to Police Sergeant Kate Evans attacked in Bristol's Elbit Systems factory.
Just because a jury doesn't convict people doesn't mean the law is wrong or inadequate, especially where the prosecution fails to come up with evidence to support the charges brought.IMO the government is crazy to keep pursuing the proscription of Palestine Action. They may sometimes cross into the modern UK definition of "terrorism" by damaging government property but that's hardly comparable with the bombings, shootings, kidnappings and hijackings of traditional terrorist groups.
However, now a review has been done to reverse that classification, but the law is still the same and unchanged.
Rufus Stone said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Probably the most sensible practical solution. The courts have helped the govt out of an embarrassing situation.
The Government is doubling down though.IanH755 said:
If it does cross into the current UK Legal definition of terrorism, then its terrorism, full stop. No matter what you or others (inc me) think - the law is the law.
Here's a teaser for you, why hasn't the government of Israel been proscribed as a terrorist organisation? Their actions on the West Bank are clearly enough to tick that box on their own, then there are their assassinations in other sovereign states etc etc. cirian75 said:
Problem was the plod ended up arresting anyone using "Palestinian" or "Palestine" in their protest sign using the proscribed terrorist group speel.
Did they though? Did that actually happen?I'm not about to trawl every left wing activist blog to look for signs of police oppression.
What i saw on "mainstream media" aka the telly, was people holding up "i support palatine action" signs - clearly in breach of the then law getting arrested after being warned they were about to be arrested if they carried on holding it up. It was kid glove stuff really compared to what the miners got, or what Britain first get.
If someone wants to trawl social media to find examples of plod arresting people under terror laws for a sign that just says "genocide in Palestine- down with this sort of thing", or "Palestinians- careful now" then I would concede the point.
But I'm not doing it myself because I've already formed an opinion from impartial reporting of the topic.
I recall someone in the guardian moaning they had been stopped when wearing the black white neck scaft thing loved by gaza supporter people (who would actually hate to live under hamas rule) whilst walking in London.
But plod stopped them because they were heading into a Britain first rally, and it was judged to be provocative.
Like I say, I think this argument is more a protestor echo chamber argument (and indeed now a high court echo chanmber argument) than anything based on actual events....
Its weak, and i feel the high court are grasping at threads that parliament did not write into the terror laws.
It is piss poor the home office did not get its ducks in a row before prescribing them though - like that terror conviction they signed a day late.
butchstewie said:
It'll be interesting to read the full ruling.
Assumed there was a fair bit of intelligence services stuff not in the public domain which played a part in the proscription as well as the publicly known stuff.
That's what I assumed. And if my understanding is right, there will be things they will never reveal for the sake of the nation's security. Assumed there was a fair bit of intelligence services stuff not in the public domain which played a part in the proscription as well as the publicly known stuff.
Horrendous subject, but some people have had some fun with it:
1. The guy in Scotland arrested for a 'Plasticine Action' T-shirt with a picture of Morph on it.
2. The guy with a placard that said: 'I support the Genocide', and the cops waved him away.
The law, especially polictically motivated law, is a complete ass.
1. The guy in Scotland arrested for a 'Plasticine Action' T-shirt with a picture of Morph on it.
2. The guy with a placard that said: 'I support the Genocide', and the cops waved him away.
The law, especially polictically motivated law, is a complete ass.
Randy Winkman said:
butchstewie said:
It'll be interesting to read the full ruling.
Assumed there was a fair bit of intelligence services stuff not in the public domain which played a part in the proscription as well as the publicly known stuff.
That's what I assumed. And if my understanding is right, there will be things they will never reveal for the sake of the nation's security. Assumed there was a fair bit of intelligence services stuff not in the public domain which played a part in the proscription as well as the publicly known stuff.
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/huda-ammori-v-s...
I m not too sure the activists are bothered. They re now busy knocking doors and taking names in towns like Brighton, checking if people are buying Jewish stuff. Apols, I of course meant Zionist stuff. Honest.
It s somewhat amusing that they screech about Elbit supplying Israel, yet Elbit supplies numerous countries - including a recent $2.3 billion deal signed with the UAE. Which to me, shows exactly how concerned Sunni Muslims in the ME are about Elbit supplying Israel.
Strange bedfellows those who nod along to stuff like this. I have a feeling the very same people would not quite see it as a harmless protest in other situations.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/synagogues-palestine...
Off to the court of appeal
It s somewhat amusing that they screech about Elbit supplying Israel, yet Elbit supplies numerous countries - including a recent $2.3 billion deal signed with the UAE. Which to me, shows exactly how concerned Sunni Muslims in the ME are about Elbit supplying Israel.
Strange bedfellows those who nod along to stuff like this. I have a feeling the very same people would not quite see it as a harmless protest in other situations.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/synagogues-palestine...
Off to the court of appeal
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff