Israel / Palestine

[spen666]

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.​

Disingenuous now? Is that an upgrade or a downgrade on being a bitch?

You still have not provided anything to back up your claims I am being untruthful

All of the above is meaningless.

The ECtHR has not made any rulings on the proscribing of Palestine Action, so no idea what their relevance is.

The Council of Europe similarly have not made any finding or statement that the proscribing of a terrorist organisation is unlawful, so once again reference to them is irrelevant

Liberty again, you are misusing generic remarks about other issues. Nothing in this about proscribing a terrorist organisation

Which leaves us with AI who have not said proscribing a terrorist organisation is unlawful. They have said it is arguable. So is pretty much anything. It doesn't make it unlawful to proscribe a terrorist organisation.





You are putting so much effort into supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation

 

[Pblakeney]

So much time being wasted on a bunch of looneys in the UK when the real story is the horror happening in Gaza.
Our government's response - stop being naughty boys. Pathetic.

 

[monkers]

Disingenuous now? Is that an upgrade or a downgrade on being a bitch?

You still have not provided anything to back up your claims I am being untruthful

All of the above is meaningless.

The ECtHR has not made any rulings on the proscribing of Palestine Action, so no idea what their relevance is.

The Council of Europe similarly have not made any finding or statement that the proscribing of a terrorist organisation is unlawful, so once again reference to them is irrelevant

Liberty again, you are misusing generic remarks about other issues. Nothing in this about proscribing a terrorist organisation

Which leaves us with AI who have not said proscribing a terrorist organisation is unlawful. They have said it is arguable. So is pretty much anything. It doesn't make it unlawful to proscribe a terrorist organisation.


You are putting so much effort into supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation

You have truly lost the plot.

I will put it to you again - no serious person believes that the Terrorism Act does not have the potential to create an impediment to Articles 10 and 11. For you to say that anybody who says so is therefore supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation is beyond ridiculous.

You might note that no charges have been brought against any of the protestors following their arrests by a great number of police in riot gear to tackle pensioners with placards who disagree with the government. They are supported in their rights by the UN, the Council of Europe, the ECtHR, Amnesty International, Liberty. Justice Chamberlain has clearly stated that it is arguable under grounds 2 and 8. There will be this time a judicial review.

These civil liberty protections have already been tested at the UK Hight Court in recent history - each time the claimants have won against the government.

Try reading this ...

https://www.bigissue.com/opinion/liberty-anti-protest-laws-court-of-appeal-2025/

 

[spen666]

You have truly lost the plot.

I will put it to you again - no serious person believes that the Terrorism Act does not have the potential to create an impediment to Articles 10 and 11. For you to say that anybody who says so is therefore supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation is beyond ridiculous.

You might note that no charges have been brought against any of the protestors following their arrests by a great number of police in riot gear to tackle pensioners with placards who disagree with the government. They are supported in their rights by the UN, the Council of Europe, the ECtHR, Amnesty International, Liberty. Justice Chamberlain has clearly stated that it is arguable under grounds 2 and 8. There will be this time a judicial review.

These civil liberty protections have already been tested at the UK Hight Court in recent history - each time the claimants have won against the government.

Try reading this ...

https://www.bigissue.com/opinion/liberty-anti-protest-laws-court-of-appeal-2025/

YYou are simply making things up and then accusing me of alleging you have said them.
Then you are making up claims that these bodies have supported you in supporting a proscribed terrorist action. None of those bodies have made the claims about the proscribing of Palestine Action that you allege.


You carry on making things up and have a nice day in your terrorist supporting world.

i'm off out on my bike for a nice pleasant ride, hopefully safe from terrorists

 

[monkers]

BYYou are simply making things up and then accusing me of alleging you have said them.
Then you are making up claims that these bodies have supported you in supporting a proscribed terrorist action. None of those bodies have made the claims about the proscribing of Palestine Action that you allege.


You carry on making things up and have a nice day in your terrorist supporting world.

i'm off out on my bike for a nice pleasant ride, hopefully safe from terrorists

Why did I call you ''quite the little bitch''? Because I noticed the misogyny in your reply. After I quoted legal fact, you replied using the word ''emotional''. This is the common tactic of men when they fail in their arguments with women.

I have made no statement that is remotely to do with supporting any terrorist group. You are making contemptuous false claims.

 

[spen666]

Why did I call you ''quite the little bitch''? Because I noticed the misogyny in your reply. After I quoted legal fact, you replied using the word ''emotional''. This is the common tactic of men when they fail in their arguments with women.

I have made no statement that is remotely to do with supporting any terrorist group. You are making contemptuous false claims.

Now I'm a misogynist?
I've not posted anything related to gender or sex or any such thing.
This is a thread about a proscribed terrorist group and about what is happening in #Palestine - there is nothing to be misogynist about


You are incredible in your invention of things and accusing me of them.


You say you have made "no statement that is remotely to do with supporting any terrorist group" yet here you are on page after page arguing that the proscribing of a terrorist group is unlawful That in the mind of most people is supporting the terorist group. you are supporting their arguments that the proscription is unlawful. Namely therefore supporting the terrorist group ( not the same as saying you support their aims)

I look forward to what spurious allegations you make against me next
We've had that I am a little bitch,
I am telling untruths ( but not actually identified anything I have said that is untrue - differing opinions does not = untruths)
I'm a misogynist

 

[AuroraSaab]

Quite the little bitch aren't you!

Didn't take long for the mask to drop.

 

[monkers]

Didn't take long for the mask to drop.

It is something I will always say to men who are being misogynist. If and when lawyer lays out a clear legal argument, it is not appropriate to call a woman ''emotional''. As a woman, on the assumption that you are, you should not be defending this.

 

[monkers]

Now I'm a misogynist?
I've not posted anything related to gender or sex or any such thing.
This is a thread about a proscribed terrorist group and about what is happening in #Palestine - there is nothing to be misogynist about


You are incredible in your invention of things and accusing me of them.


You say you have made "no statement that is remotely to do with supporting any terrorist group" yet here you are on page after page arguing that the proscribing of a terrorist group is unlawful That in the mind of most people is supporting the terorist group. you are supporting their arguments that the proscription is unlawful. Namely therefore supporting the terrorist group ( not the same as saying you support their aims)

I look forward to what spurious allegations you make against me next
We've had that I am a little bitch,
I am telling untruths ( but not actually identified anything I have said that is untrue - differing opinions does not = untruths)
I'm a misogynist

It is untrue to say that I have said that I support terrorist action. This is not defensible.

It is true to say that I believe the proscription of PA is legally flawed, or that it is at least arguable. This is no different to what Justice Martin Chamberlain has said, and no different to being reported by the press.

Instead of arguing legal points, something you would do if legally trained, you have instead relied upon insults. You have also shown that you have no resilience when insults are returned. I am not ''emotional''. I am not supporting the criminal actions of PA. I am supporting the article 10 and 11 rights of ordinary citizens. If you are not alert to the difference, then you have no understanding of law.

The case has been called ''arguable'' by Chamberlain on grounds 2 and 8. Therefore it can not at this stage be considered absolute which has been your stance. I'm not predicting Chamberlain's ruling, but at least until then, it remains ''arguable''.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It is something I will always say to men who are being misogynist. If and when lawyer lays out a clear legal argument, it is not appropriate to call a woman ''emotional''. As a woman, on the assumption that you are, you should not be defending this.

He said no such thing. You called him a bitch - a sexist insult usually directed at women, and when used towards men is aimed to emasculate and humiliate - because you are unable to stand even the mildest of disagreement. Any opposition to your views eventually sends you off the deep end and inevitably the pretence drops.

I'm not defending anything he's said; I'm pointing out your endless 'Look what you made me do' line when you resort to personal abuse. Five minutes on the gender thread illustrates it. You do it to bully people into not posting.

We only have your word you are anything you say you are so let's drop the 'When a lawyer posts...' appeal to authority type argument.

 

[monkers]

He said no such thing. You called him a bitch - a sexist insult usually directed at women, and when used towards men is aimed to emasculate and humiliate - because you are unable to stand even the mildest of disagreement. Any opposition to your views eventually sends you off the deep end and inevitably the pretence drops.

I'm not defending anything he's said; I'm pointing out your endless 'Look what you made me do' line when you resort to personal abuse. Five minutes on the gender thread illustrates it. You do it to bully people into not posting.

We only have your word you are anything you say you are so let's drop the 'When a lawyer posts...' appeal to authority type argument.

I understood the meaning of this piece of misogynistic snark ...

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

I am arguing points of law. Spen is rather avoiding doing so.

 

[spen666]

....

Instead of arguing legal points, something you would do if legally trained, you have instead relied upon insults. Y....

Hey - guess what yet more insults from you.
Yet you accuse me of the insults when it is you throwing insult after insult because someone dares to challenge your views and point out that bodies yo once again aru claim support your view have actually made no such statements on this point

I understood the meaning of this piece of misogynistic snark ...



I am arguing points of law. Spen is rather avoiding doing so.

I understood the meaning of this piece of misogynistic snark ...

I am arguing points of law. Spen is rather avoiding doing so.

I understood the meaning of this piece of misogynistic snark ...



I am arguing points of law. Spen is rather avoiding doing so.

You were in the post I replied to making emotive points rather than legal points. I correctly pointed out to you the Court deals with the law, not emotions. Indeed in their judgement on the issue of injunctive relief, the Court of Appeal made this point

nothing misgynistic about stating correctly the court deals with law not emotions

 

[CXRAndy]

Im offended you made me say that

 

[matticus]

Spen dear chap, the post I've pasted below is one of the clearest examples of factual legal discussion on this forum, I cannot fathom how you managed to critique it for bringing "emotion" into matters!

 

[spen666]

So you agree with me then? The court decides the application on the law, and emotion is irrelevant to the court

Its amazing how both Monkers and you agree with what I say but somehow I'm misogynitic for saying the correct legal position without reference to male or female, or sexual orientation or race or any protected feature .
Seems the hard cold factual truth is an anathema to some people