Israel / Palestine

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

monkers

Shaman
Protesting against a law is very different from deliberately breaking the law.
one is effective free speech and to be supported, one is a deliberate criminal act.

they are very different actions

Were it only so simple as you state.

In order to place a restriction on Article 11, the law which permits the proscription of Palestine Action would need to contain a clause which in turn restricts the Article 10 and 11 rights under HRA 1998. That law is presumably the Terrorism Act 2000 which places no such restriction in statute.

Therefore the point is ethically and legally arguable. It's not just me saying that, the High Court have given permission for a judicial review. Mr Justice Chamberlain found it “reasonably arguable” that the proscription is a disproportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11.
 

monkers

Shaman
Police main function is to prevent / stop a breach of the peace

That is the common law duty. Anything else you'd like to add?
 

monkers

Shaman
Have to agree with Spen here - this is a really dumb comment!

Yes and no. People have been asking on this thread the reason why the government so readily proscribed Palestine Action - I think it is because the government and the military have been embarrassed by how easily they gained access and were able to leave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

monkers

Shaman
Very deliberately and completely ignoring the big difference about intent...and the tragic loss of lives in the two genuine acts of terrorism.

I am still unsure about where the plane engine paint-spraying involved the use of "Terror" or its promotion as an aim.

I suppose "inconveniencism" doesn't have the same ring as "terrorism".

I guess opinions will always vary, but I would argue that it was more of an ''extremist act'' rather than a ''terrorist attack''.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...tremism-2024/new-definition-of-extremism-2024
 
Last edited:

spen666

Senior Member
Were it only so simple as you state.

In order to place a restriction on Article 11, the law which permits the proscription of Palestine Action would need to contain a clause which in turn restricts the Article 10 and 11 rights under HRA 1998. That law is presumably the Terrorism Act 2000 which places no such restriction in statute.

Therefore the point is ethically and legally arguable. It's not just me saying that, the High Court have given permission for a judicial review. Mr Justice Chamberlain found it “reasonably arguable” that the proscription is a disproportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11.

your knowledge of the law and how it works is clearly lacking

The High Court giving permission for a Judicial Review does not mean they have agreed with you nor does it mean they have disagreed with you. It means they have agreed there is a point of law to be argued. The Court also refused the application for injunctive relief - if the High Court had found as you mistakenly claim, they would almost certainly have granted injunctive relief to prevent the proscribing of Palestine Action pending the hearing. Both the High Court and separately the Court of Appeal refused to grant injunctive relief

PS Have you any idea what the reasoning was for the High Court allowing a hearing of an application for a Judicial Review? It makes very interesting reading. Read the reasoning by the court, not the spin put on it by the lawyers/ commentators
 
Last edited:

monkers

Shaman
your knowledge of the law and how it works is clearly lacking

The High Court giving permission for a Judicial Review does not mean they have agreed with you nor does it mean they have disagreed with you. It means they have agreed there is a point of law to be argued. The Court also refused the application for injunctive relief - if the High Court had found as you mistakenly claim, they would almost certainly have granted injunctive relief to prevent the proscribing of Palestine Action pending the hearing. Both the High Court and separately the Court of Appeal refused to grant injunctive relief

PS Have you any idea what the reasoning was for the High Court allowing a hearing of an application for a Judicial Review? It makes very interesting reading. Read the reasoning by the court, not the spin put on it by the lawyers/ commentators

It does Spen.

I said it is arguable. Justice Chamberlain states that it is arguable. Therefore we - Justice Chamberlain and I - agree that it is arguable. I never mentioned anything about ''injunctive relief'' - it shall be your error if you continue to suggest that I did so.

If it is arguable then it can not be absolute, which is the stance you stated and maintained.
 

spen666

Senior Member
It does Spen.

I said it is arguable. Justice Chamberlain states that it is arguable. Therefore we - Justice Chamberlain and I - agree that it is arguable. I never mentioned anything about ''injunctive relief'' - it shall be your error if you continue to suggest that I did so.

If it is arguable then it can not be absolute, which is the stance you stated and maintained.

Complete misunderstanding of the law and the way it works


Oh and I never suggested you mentioned injunctive relief - I mentioned it because it is significant to the position of the court. Quite why you are suggesting I said you mentioned injunctive relief is mystifying


All your diversionary words do nothing to undermine the fact that criminal conduct is criminal conduct
 

monkers

Shaman
Complete misunderstanding of the law and the way it works


Oh and I never suggested you mentioned injunctive relief - I mentioned it because it is significant to the position of the court. Quite why you are suggesting I said you mentioned injunctive relief is mystifying


All your diversionary words do nothing to undermine the fact that criminal conduct is criminal conduct

I would say exactly the same to you.

I won't be in court that day, but if I were, I would be arguing ...

The prime duty of government is to protect citizens. In this case there was no direct risk - ''proximate cause to harm'' - to the safety of UK citizens. However that prime duty does include ensuring the human rights of citizens (HRA1998).

The criminal acts committed by PA activists are a comfortable fit within the UK government policy definition of ''extremism'' which does not define any criminal acts as ''terrorist''. This being because extremist acts are covered by existing statute such as for but one example, criminal damage, which places no upper limit on monetary value within the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

As these acts fit within the definition of extremism they should be considered within that framework.

The Terrorism Act does indeed give mention to acts with intent to influence government. Are we to drag all lobbyists and members of think tanks before the court on terrorist charges? Clearly not. I will argue that campaign groups that intend to influence government are exercising their democratic rights. An authoritarian government might say otherwise - well actually they have - and that is the difficulty - they have placed an impediment on human rights in one act without legitimising it with a specific exemption in the HRA.
 

spen666

Senior Member
I would say exactly the same to you.

I won't be in court that day, but if I were, I would be arguing ...

The prime duty of government is to protect citizens. In this case there was no direct risk - ''proximate cause to harm'' - to the safety of UK citizens. However that prime duty does include ensuring the human rights of citizens (HRA1998).

The criminal acts committed by PA activists are a comfortable fit within the UK government policy definition of ''extremism'' which does not define any criminal acts as ''terrorist''. This being because extremist acts are covered by existing statute such as for but one example, criminal damage, which places no upper limit on monetary value within the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

As these acts fit within the definition of extremism they should be considered within that framework.

The Terrorism Act does indeed give mention to acts with intent to influence government. Are we to drag all lobbyists and members of think tanks before the court on terrorist charges? Clearly not. I will argue that campaign groups that intend to influence government are exercising their democratic rights. An authoritarian government might say otherwise - well actually they have - and that is the difficulty - they have placed an impediment on human rights in one act without legitimising it with a specific exemption in the HRA.


Its a court deciding matters on legal principles and emotion is irrelevant to the court



Many people would argue completely the contrary to you and that organisations intent on damaging the national defence infrastructure are causing serious harm to the public and the government would be failing in its duty to protect the public if they allow such groups to commit their acts intended to harm the national defence infrastructure to bring about changes in political stand points.
Just because you support the Palestinian people does not give you or any group the right to try to force their views to prevail by violence. To use violent means to force people to support your views is the classic definition of terrorism

In fact this whole behaviour is acting contrary to the interests of people in Palestine as now the focus is on a proscribed terrorist group in the UK rather than on the suffering of those in the middle east.



Anyway, you carry on supporting terrorist groups
 
To use violent means to force people to support your views is the classic definition of terrorism

_99909559_cooper.jpg.jpg


Here's the very woman who had Palestine Action proscribed, showing support for, and wearing the colours of, what you define as a terrorist group.

They're only terrorists when they don't support your political goals.

[Edited to correct punctuation]
 
Last edited:

spen666

Senior Member
Quite the little bitch aren't you! You love to bicker and make personal remarks and tell blatant untruths.

You are supporting Palestine Action by your comments on this thread

Palestine Action are a proscribed terrorist group

QED you are supporting a terrorist organisation


No personal remarks or blatant untruths from me...unlike you who has just called me a little bitch.

Its quite hilarious you accuse me of resorting to personal remarks immediately after accusing me of being a little bitch. Meanwhile, I have not made any personal remarks about you. Its not a personal remark to say that someone who is posting in support of a proscribed terrorist organisation is supporting terrorist groups. Its also not untrue.
 

monkers

Shaman
You are supporting Palestine Action by your comments on this thread

Palestine Action are a proscribed terrorist group

QED you are supporting a terrorist organisation


No personal remarks or blatant untruths from me...unlike you who has just called me a little bitch.

Its quite hilarious you accuse me of resorting to personal remarks immediately after accusing me of being a little bitch. Meanwhile, I have not made any personal remarks about you. Its not a personal remark to say that someone who is posting in support of a proscribed terrorist organisation is supporting terrorist groups. Its also not untrue.

You are exceedingly disingenuous.

Quite clearly I am reclaiming the right for citizens to dissent with their government. The right to speak truth to power - a cornerstone of a functioning democracy.

You parroted a couple of times about criminal action being criminal action. My reply is that the state should bring criminal charges using existing criminal law. That is not supporting a terrorist organisation.

The state can not be correct if it has one definition of extremism which it states is not criminal in itself and a definition of terrorism which does not even meet the definition of extremism and says that it is. The Terrorism Act is a clear overreach of the state.

I do not accept that pensioners with placards sending a message to the government about the plight of people in Gaza are terrorists.

This requires a more lengthy answer, it's late and to be honest I have little time for absurdity, so I'm going to let the everyman version of Copilot write the reply in quick response mode ...


🛡️ Support for Protestors from Key Human Rights Bodies​

🇺🇳 United Nations

  • UN Human Rights Experts publicly condemned the UK’s proscription of Palestine Action as “disproportionate and unnecessary”.
  • They argued that property damage without intent to harm does not meet the threshold for terrorism under international law.
  • Warned that criminalising peaceful support for the group violates rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and political participation.
  • The UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights has been granted permission to intervene in the judicial review of the proscription.

🇪🇺 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

  • The ECtHR has consistently upheld Articles 10 and 11of the European Convention on Human Rights:
    • Freedom of expression
    • Freedom of peaceful assembly
  • In recent rulings, the Court found that disproportionate penalties for non-violent protest and convictions based solely on police testimony violate fair trial rights and assembly freedoms.
  • The ECtHR’s Guide on Mass Protests affirms that peaceful protest—even if disruptive—is protected unless it endangers life or incites violence.

🇪🇺 Council of Europe

  • The Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) has called on member states to support protest movements and resist authoritarian misuse of counter-terror laws.
  • The Congress of Local Authorities condemned reprisals against activists for expressing dissent at Council meetings, calling such prosecutions “scandalous and unacceptable”.

🇬🇧 Liberty

  • Liberty successfully challenged anti-protest legislation in UK courts, restoring protections against arbitrary police powers8.
  • Continues to provide legal support and public advocacy for protestors arrested under terrorism laws.
  • Warns that the Public Order Act and Policing Act risk criminalising peaceful dissent and disproportionately targeting vulnerable groups.

🌍 Amnesty International

  • Amnesty UK wrote directly to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, urging restraint and warning that arrests for peaceful placard-holding violate international law10.
  • Cited the High Court’s ruling that the proscription of Palestine Action is arguably unlawful, undermining the legal basis for arrests under the Terrorism Act.
  • Reaffirmed that peaceful protest speech is protected unless it incites violence or hatred.


Now try to persuade me that you know more than the sum of these bodies about the law.

 
Last edited:
Top Bottom