Why is peace so threatening to the UK government?
The ‘Defend our Juries’ campaign write that: “Local police forces have made arrests at all nine Lift The Ban actions in England and Wales today (Tuesday 18 November), whereas Police Scotland did not arrest the 49 people holding the same signs in Edinburgh.”
“The different approaches in Scotland, England and Wales illustrates the widening gap between enforcement of the proscription of Palestine Action across the nations. This is the fourth Lift The Ban action in Edinburgh where Police Scotland have chosen not to make arrests (although they have separately arrested and charged a seemingly random ten people from the 85 who took action in September).
“Earlier this year the Scottish Counter-Terrorism Board concluded that Palestine Action “has not been close to meeting the statutory definition of terrorism.” A legal challenge against the ban has recently been filed in Scotland which could lead to a constitutional crisis if Scottish and English courts reach different decisions.”
After we sat for the hour in the cold and wet in Edinburgh today, a few of us offered reflections from ‘Defend our Juries’ and ‘Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign’ perspectives.
Mine included much of the following:
It is so bizarre that sitting in silence for an hour with placards opposing genocide is seen as such a threat by the UK government.
What are they so threatened by that they have arrested over 2,000 people for this peaceful action?
And today in 17 out of 18 towns and cities across England and Wales more were arrested for the same ‘crime’.
What is the UK government so afraid of?
Our humanity. Our care. Our refusal to accept the warmongering.
The Uk government is actively supporting genocide,
It is using terror laws to try to silence those who try to take peaceful action to stop the genocide.
By taking action and speaking out we try to oppose genocide, and we demonstrate democracy in action.
The Scottish Parliament voted to condemn the ongoing genocide that Israel is committing with the active support of the UK government. Peaceful pressure from the people on the streets shamed and persuaded the Scottish government to say that they will boycott Israel.
Now we need to make that real, and – crucially – we need to bring the Uk government to its senses.
Once this is all over, everyone will have been against the genocide.
Once this is all over, everyone will have been against this attempt to close down democracy.
The question will be:
– What action did you take? or
– What atrocities did you ignore?
Huge thanks to the 49 Defend our Juries activists who sat with placards saying “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action”.
Huge thanks to those from Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign who stood with T-shirts saying “Genocide in Palestine. Time to take action”.
Huge thanks to those who stood in solidarity, and to Protest in Harmony, who sang softly and powerfully.
And to police scotland: thank you for standing by and not trying to close down our democratic right of peaceful assembly and free speech. (But no thanks for then trying to chase three of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign folk – though you were unable to arrest them because we were solid against such harassment. No thanks for trying to follow another who slipped away as you looked in all the wrong places.)
And when you are ordered to come to our homes to arrest us in the weeks to come (as you have done after previous such protests), just say no.
You don’t have to support injustice, and if you do you are helping create a world where your children cannot be safe.
Genocide is against intentional law. Arresting people for peacefully assembling to oppose genocide is against international law.
Police Scotland – act within the law that humans share, not the law contrived through a bogus process rigged by a genocide-backing government.
Let’s carry on being human with each other. The problem is not our humanity, it is a traumatising system that requires us not to care.
We care.
We are here.
We will win so everyone can win.
And we will not forget what has been done, and being done, by those committing genocide against the people of Palestine, backed by the UK government and those who profit from perpetuating war.
And we will make sure you do not forget.
We will make sure that instead you remember your humanity, and in remembering it you will know how utterly appalling you have let yourselves become.
We will still welcome you back to your humanity. Humanity is bigger than inhumanity. It is where we live.
Inhumanity – however wealthy – is no place for anyone to live. It is a lifeless ghost.
Come home, and let the people of Palestine be at home too.
We mourn the appalling horror. We speak out against it. We sing against it. We sit in silence against it. A silence that shouts to your buried conscience: wake up and care.
More info at: https://defendourjuries.net/lift-the-ban/
Thank you Justin for your passionate words, we sit in solidarity but this can be a lonely place, it is good to be strengthened by your reminders of why we do this.
Heather & Justin – please remember that there are far more of us who support you protest against the UK government’s complicity in genocide and their willingness to ignore international law.
Many people are not willing, able to stand on front line with you but this doesn’t mean we don’t support you and despise the UK government’s and opposition’s support for the genocide in Gaza.
“Earlier this year the Scottish Counter-Terrorism Board concluded that Palestine Action “has not been close to meeting the statutory definition of terrorism.”
Other views are of course available:
“An alleged Palestine Action member attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer, fracturing her back, during an organised break-in at a UK subsidiary of an Israeli defence firm, a court has heard.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79727zeqyvo
So every breaking and entering offence is a terrorist offence?
Every criminal that attacks a policeman is a terrorist?
These are criminal offences not terrorism as I suspect you, and the government, are aware.
It’d be foolish to suggest that every act of violence or attack on a police officer is a terrorist violence. All the available evidence clearly shows the vast majority are not. And the person on trial here isn’t being pursued for any terrorist offence; merely ones of violence. Extreme violence. I would presume because PA wasn’t actually proscribed at that point.
So rather than having a go at me simply for daring to disagree I’d encourage you to do is what I did.
Look at the relevant legislation to see how Terrorism is defined in law and then try to defend with evidence how this alleged “action” alone wouldn’t put PA firmly in the camp of a group any government might have had to take the action it did.
Please explain how an attack on the domestic defence infrastructure for a political end isn’t worthy of being considered a breach of the TA, how attacking people in their workplace isn’t, attacking police officers then sent to do their duty and deal with the incident, or causing significant criminal damage.
I for one would be very interested to hear how anyone could justify the type of behavior alleged in the BBC article, because what has been described is as far as it could be from peaceful protest. Or indeed how such actions, if true, wouldn’t then have such a group proscribed?
The Terrorism Act introduced by Tony Blair’s government has been criticised for being so wide ranging that it has devalued the term and meaning of terrorism.
The proscribing of Palestine Action is the first time that acts of vandalism against government property rather than spreading terror through use of violence against public has been cited and validates the criticism of Terrorism Act.
Palestine Action are a direct action group set up to prevent the Uk authorities from supporting the genocide in Palestine. There are numerous examples of Direct Action groups throughout history who have used this tactic from the Suffragettes through to antinuclear protesters at Greenham Common. If you are aware of your history you will know that they also caused damage to government property and indeed the Suffragettes actions caused more terror amongst general public than Palestine Action have.. All of these protestors were dealt with under criminal law of time as should Palestine Action.
The use of proscription for Palestine Action (sneaked through parliament by piggybacking on two genuine terorrist groups),which ends up in the ridiculous arrests of peaceful protestors waving banners or wearing t shirts, for what many consider political reasons is actually not only a massive waste of police resources but in danger of bringing the terrorism act into public disrepute and undermining the the vital fight against genuine terrorism in UK.
It appears you’re content to justify the type of actions being reported by the BBC. So be it, we both live in a democracy and have freedom of choice.
Condoning political violence can only ever take us down the path to destruction in my view. After all, if you are happy to excuse acts of violence for a cause you believe in can you really condemn others equally committed to doing so in the name of theirs?
However, as you do apparently support this approach please at least have the courage of your convictions. Don’t then have the audacity to complain when you or those you support are held to the full account of the law for doing what’s know to be prohibited by law.
Freedom of conscience and speech has never included any freedom from consequences.
I have not said that PA supporters who have committed criminal damage or assault shouldn’t face criminal charges.
For the rest of your reply I refer you to my comments above.
I note your opposition of any direct action with a political dimension and refer you to the long historical tradition of this form of protest in this country.
If you are happy to see peaceful protesters being arrested for wearing t shirts or waving homemade placards I would ask you to look up the definition of authoritarianism.
There’s a distinct difference between direct action and violent action.
As I’ve said already, if you seek to justify the violence of your own side contrary to the law you can’t then complain when others use the exact same methods to progress theirs.
As for your historical precedents? I’ll raise you a Gandhi and Dr. King.
Last post because you are so obtuse.
I applaud the aims of Palestine Action – to highlight and prevent the UK aiding and abetting genocide in Gaza (a much greater scale of harm and violence) even if I don’t necessarily agree with their methods.
I oppose the proscription of PA and consider the criminal law appropriate for dealing with their actions. The criminalisation of people involved in peaceful protest against proscription of PA is authoritarian, ridiculous, a waste of police and judiciary time and resources and bringing government action against terrorism into disrepute. These peaceful protests are very much in the mould of Ghandi and MLK.
Last post.
There’s nothing obtuse about political violence – you either believe it’s right or wrong.
I believe it’s wrong and to proffer it could ever be in the spirit of Gandhi and King is simply delusional.
As ye sow…
Both Gandhi and King were murdered.
Sorry, but what’s your point?
That even if non violence wins the day we should eschew it in favour of violence anyway because the other side might still use it?
Did you even read the remarks I made about where political violence ALWAYS leads?
Today in in Tavistock Square, London — known as the peace gardens with anti-war memorials the Met Police instantly start arresting protestors for silently holding signs which say they oppose genocide and the Palestine Action ban.
Your entire argument is hopeless and morally bankrupt.
As our human and civil rights have been stripped away you have stood up not to oppose this, but to celebrate it. Incredible.
Didn’t these people simlply get exactly what they hoped for?
Fully grown adults of presumably sound mind deliberately gather at a pre-arranged and heavily advertised place with the absolute intention of being arrested for showing support for an organisation they know to be proscribed under the Terrorism Act – and are!
Showing support for an organisation that’s proscription was authorised by a democratically elected parliament in a fully functioning representative democracy. Equally importantly, a proscription that is currently the subject of challenge and oversight in the open Courts.
1984 this is not, BCE.
So perhaps you’d be kind enough to set aside the Citizen Smith histrionics and just get to the meat of your outburst by explaining why my “entire argument is hopeless and morally bankrupt”. The floor’s (quite literally since it’s your blog) all yours.
It is mine but it is also yours. I’m not sure what you are struggling with? Presumably you argue that because a government is democratically elected it’s entitled to enact any legislation whatsoever, even if it criminalises peaceful protest against genocide?
There are no Citizen Smith histrionics required to dissect your wildly reactionary and absurd argument. Laws of peaceful assembly and protest were fought for and won over hundreds of years and are not to be abandoned by the likes of you.
Oh yes the fully functioning democracy where the government got 2/3rds of seats but only 1/3rd of votes. I severely doubt the 9,7 million people that voted Labour (out of 48 million registered electorate) did so to show their support for the police arresting OAP’s and retired vicars for the hideous crime of waving placards and wearing tea shirts in a peaceful manner.
I would also point out that Police in Scotland have adopted a different approach of minimal arrests of protesters as opposed to police in England. Have you even asked yourself why this might be?
The government manipulated democracy to attach the vote for proscription of Palestine Action to the proscription of two other groups that did provide a real threat to public at large. Many MP’s weren’t keen on proscription of PA but not unreasonably even less realistic to oppose a bill proscribing a group threatening to poison children’s sweets. This was a government tactic to try and avoid a possible defeat or at least a large rebellion over proscription of Palestine Action.
Lastly as you point out the proscription of Palestine Action is to be challenged at High Court but what you omit to point out is that the government has been trying (and have failed) to block this even going to court such is their confidence in proscription and their belief in their democratic principles.
Addendum
History will be the judge as it has been about the Suffragettes and Nelson Mandela – both similarly accused of using violence for political ends.
Since you recommended a BBC website can I recommend you read ‘Complicit’ by Peter Oborne, the respected journalist, to actually get a more nuanced understanding of the background to this issue rather than the simplistic authoritarian black and white narrative you seem to cling too.
See also Radical Flank Effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_flank_effect
Baroness Cluny (Labour), the new advocate general for Scotland, apparently sponsored this House of Lords debate in November 2024 out of “concerns that the rule of law has been eroded”.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/rule-of-law-principles-challenges-and-government-commitments/
Whether the rule of law is a ‘fundamental British value’ is open to much questioning, of course. If so, when did that happen? I don’t agree with everything JK Galbraith says in his entertaining economics history series The Age of Uncertainty: 4. The Colonial Idea (BBC iPlayer), but the programme raises interesting questions about how the British may have approached the rule of law in India during the Raj (for an alternative view, see Elizabeth Kolsky’s Colonial Justice in British India: White Violence and the Rule of Law), in an extremely amateurish, ill-prepared and condescending way that structurally harboured manifold abuses of the rule of law.
Lord Chief Justice Burnett has said:
“And last the rule of law means the state must comply with international obligations as well as national laws. Practically on a day-to-day basis, that means that you should not be arrested without a good reason.”
“… The United Kingdom is seen by many internationally as the cradle of the rule of law. And that is fundamentally important to our position in the world.”
So what happens when our rulers don’t see any advantage in pretending to a (no doubt sceptical) international audience that it cares a fig about the rule of law? When the collective judgements of our top judiciary are thrown into question by their ineloquent defences of their clubbable society? When the legal immunities of prominent establishment figures become a focus for public outrage? When the British government is held not only in contempt of international colonial and human rights courts, but guilty of active complicity in the worst crimes on the planet unfolding today?
The iron fist emerges from beneath the tattered, begrimed and bloodstained velvet glove? Will any of the real imperial criminals end up in court? I can only think of a few who ever did, mostly on matters incidental or unrelated to their colonial service.
Thank you!
Then I await your dissection, BCE.
Make any salient point or argument you wish on the specifics that have so obviously irked you and I’ll endeavor to respond and explain myself better.
Alternatively, you can just leave things as they are. I don’t personally see the merit in name-calling, but it’s your choice. I’m content enough either way.
I don’t have any dissection to make, you have attacked people making peaceful protest against genocide and supported the criminalisation of our rights. You may live in some silo of your own mind where this is all rational but out here in the real world it is terrifying nonsense. If you persist I will respond for a while but really its beneath the dignity and reason of most people on this platform to entertain your delusions.
I’d be interested to hear how you can possibly justify a police officer having their back broken with a sledgehammer is “peaceful protest”?
How questioning whether public support for such a group is “terrifying nonsense” or “beneath dignity and reason”?
How not being able to show support for this one single prohibited group has in any way prevented publicly protesting events in Gaza, the West Bank or Israeli foreign policy more generally?
‘Genocide is against intentional law. Arresting people for peacefully assembling to oppose genocide is against international law.’
Justin Kenrick
Admirable attempt at a swerve, but I’m not biting. Sorry.
I asked three incredibly simple questions of you. Why can’t you just answer them?
Palestine Action aims in UK is to stop the UK aiding and abetting Israel in conducting what many reputable and specialist international and humanitarian organisations have deemed a genocide. They are a Direct Action group who target organisations who are involved in supplying military support to Israel in UK. Their moral argument is that they are undertaking this action to prevent death and destruction in Gaza and accept they are breaking the law in UK to achieve this aim. There are trials where the judge has dismissed case against Palestine Action activists because their actions were deemed to be morally justifiable for the greater good. (something you would struggle to understand.)
There is a long tradition in UK of DirectAction often on behalf of cases that history had deemed justifiable. This history does show that violence is sometimes used and has been dealt with by criminal law. Those that oppose the proscription of Palestine Action do so because they either agree with the aims of the organisation or profoundly disagree with the government using proscription as a means of silencing an organisation opposed to government policy. These groups do not necessarily overlap and neither do they necessarily approve of all actions undertaken by Palestine Action.
Palestine Action are not a threat to the general public and do not spread terror throughout the public.
Your simplistic argument that an assault on a police officer, as it was, somehow means that people should stop supporting its aims and justifies it proscription is ridiculous. Following through on your logic I am a potential terrorist and I should therefore stop supporting my football team because a policeman was hurt by a fellow fan in an act of hooliganism and that my football team should be proscribed.
Nobody, not least I justify – or even refer to violence against the police or anyone else.
Individual acts of violence are already covered under the law.
Your terrifying nonsense is clear, partly because you don;t seem to have any conception of the consequences of criminalising peaceful protest in a democracy.
See the various article already written here on this very subject.
More of the “terrifying nonsense” schtick. You’re quite the hyperbole generator, but no amount of bluster can divert from the facts here.
Nobody at all is banned from protesting events in Gaza, the West Bank or against Israeli policy more widely in the UK. Everyone is as free to do that today as in the past, so why pretend otherwise?
The only aspect of protest “banned” (under a piece of legislation that has been in place for years) is showing support for any organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act – PA in this instance. THAT is what you really object to – PA being proscribed. THAT is what you are really aggrieved at and protesting abut, not the slaughter, and using the suffering of others as a Trojan Horse to shield your true intentions is not only disingenuous it’s extremely distasteful.
It’s perfectly legitimate to both believe and argue PA should not have been proscribed. It is not to argue it was done in some form of undemocratic or Orwellian fashion. Especially as it was by vote in a democratically elected parliament in a functioning representative democracy and the prescription itself is currently being publicly challenge in open court.
It’s also equally legitimate to argue that this proscription is probably correct and a balanced response, as I do. That is it is duplicitousness for anyone to attempt to argue PA indulges in peaceful protest when members of it are currently on trial for Aggravated Burglary, Violent Disorder and GBH offences associated just one of their actions alone. That peaceful protest can never involve acts of violence.
You seem very confused. Your tone is of someone unused to being challenged publicly. You dole out pronouncements about what is and is not ‘legitimate’ yet are unable to recognise that ‘democratically elected parliaments’ can and do legislate repressive and vindictive laws. I would advise educating yourself better before indulging in public discourse.
You do realise that people that don’t agree with proscription of Palestine Action fall into three groups:
1)Those that support aims and actions of PA.
2)Those that support aims but not all the actions of PA and are concerned about threat to civilian liberty that this proscription entails.(I include myself in this group and have no problem with those that have broken criminal law going to court).
3)Those that neither support aims or actions of PA but are concerned with threat to civilian liberty liberties that this proscription entails.
In addition I can see 3 reasons why the government have taken the unprecedented action of using Terrorism Act to proscribe an organisation that any reasonable assessment shows are not a terror threat to general public:
1)Government do not want the military support they continue to supply government to become public knowledge. The government continue to claim they do not provide military support to Israel when even Israeli figures show they have actually increased their expenditure on military support to Israel in last 6 months.
2)Government are responding to pressure from Israeli government or/in addition to pro Israel lobbies in UK.
3) Government are responding to pressure from USA either to keep in with Trump administration. This could have been due to both unequivocal military support USA provides Israel and the fact that PA targeted Trump hotel in UK.
It is concerning that the government would be willing to stigmatise UK citizens as terrorists to please a foreign government. This should be a concern to any UK citizen.
None of the above are legitimate reasons especially as Israel is in breach of International Law including in all probability genocide. Aiding and abetting genocide is also in contravention of International Law as the UK government is doing. This leaves members of UK government liable under International Law. The main rationale behind PA actions is to prevent UK government breaking international law as well as trying to reduce deaths, casualties and destruction in Gaza – which are on a scale thousands of times greater than anything PA have actually done.
AsI have said before if you are not aware of this you need to educate yourself on the background to this issue. If you are aware well there is no more I can say to you.
Saw your reply from 7pm from yesterday BCE, which unfortunately seems not to have a reply button? Anyway, as I’ve already stated no amount of goading, name-calling or any other childishness of the like is going to encourage me to bite.
I know WHY you don’t want to answers the three questions put to you; it’s not that you can’t, after all. Who would when to answer them honestly would hole their own “argument” well below the waterline, but you chose to engage me in debate.
So again:
1) Where is your evidence that public protest, indeed mass public protest, has been prevented by the proscription of PA?
2) How can you possibly claim PA is involved in peaceful protest when its members are currently in trial for attacking people with sledgehammers?
3) Why are you using the slaughter in Gaza etc. as a Trojan Horse when your real grievance/protest isn’t about that (as point 1 proves) but is wholly centered on objection to PA’s proscription?
I accept evidence suggests I’m unlikely ever to get a straight answer. The questions won’t, however, simply just go away – however many party-tricks are played by you in an attempt to avoid answering them.
Dear Anonymous poster, I don’t know why you can’t see the Reply button that is on every comment nor why you could’t see the post where I’ve already replied to your tiresome questions which you seem to think are some magnificent gotcha moments.
I think you best be left in your brilliance comforted in the knowledge that elderly people are being dragged off the streets to be arrested for holding up a piece of paper in Britain in 2025, and you think that’s great.