'On the face of it, it does look as if terrorism law is being misused, at least in respect of the mass arrests of people for merely holding signs expressing support for Palestine Action.' Your restrained words are developed and illustrated in a most helpful way. Thank you, DAG. Terrorism laws in the hands of any politicians are dangerous, in my opinion; and if politicians are then supported by the higher judiciary - like the Supreme Court in Trump's USA - a variety of historical precedents stare out at us.
Thank you for your delicate unpicking of some of the pitfalls in this legislation. We welcome your views which help us to understand the real issues more clearly.
I too listened to the judgement and found it to be rather more sensible than the High Court decision. I have no objection to proscription of what is a violent organisation - with sledgehammers as the tool of choice.
Like you however I am concerned at the wording of section 12 (1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It has the strange effect of allowing someone to approve of a proscribed organisation, but not to try to convince anyone-else that he’s right unless he’s at least fairly sure that he will fail to do so.
He can also seemingly ask for money or materials for the proscribed organisation under Section 12 (1), but section 12 (1A) would prevent him from explaining how he justifies that request: if successful he would thereby have encouraged support for the proscribed organisation - unless he was talking to the converted.
Apart from it being very poor drafting, it means that a whole load of pensioners holding up banners supporting Palestine Action are in breach of S 12(1A). No doubt it was a cunning plan on the part of Palestine Action to encourage their support in order to give the impression that they couldn’t possibly be a terrorist organisation – how could it be, granted the amount of white hair, dog collars, Zimmer frames and arthritis on show? Surely they would not approve of violence. I cannot see, however, what the public interest is in actually prosecuting them.
Hmmm - I've started to read the judgment. Five Court of Appeal judges and twenty-three learned friends.... Five Court of Appeal judges is very rare. One feels that those listing the case 'doth protest [a little] too much'. Did the decision really take such judicial weight to arrive at?...
The High Court at first instance sat with three, including the President of the Kings Bench Division. As such it would be more surprising had the Court of Appeal bench not expanded to three.
And yes, the possibility of disapplying such a proscription should have the weightiest bench available, either way.
When history writes the judgment of the English judiciary of today, it will convict them of enabling or mandating two genocides (against Palestinians and against trans people) and rubberstamping the United Kingdom's descent into an illiberal, authoritarian – indeed, a fascist – shithole. It will name them as collaborators and place them alongside Pétain, Quisling, and Victor Emmanuel III of Italy.
It sickens me that I am demanded to have respect for laws which encode oppression and evil and for judges who carry out that oppression and evil with such zeal. Breaking *objects* belonging to a defence contractor does not compare to the systematised mass murder of people, and particularly of children, on the basis of their ethnicity and religion, and I will not indulge the canard that they do, or that the former is somehow worse than the latter.
Over a pint last night my friend, a wise old bird & former solicitor, posited the following way forward.
1 Palestine Action (or any organisation like them) be required to present a constitution which specifically prohibits violent protest/ criminal damage etc in their name. Anyone who does either of above or similar should be prosecuted.
2 HMG offers an amnesty to all its citizens currently clogging up the judicial system for sitting down with a PA placard.
3 Peaceful protest can continue & so can the work of the courts dealing with far more important business.
'On the face of it, it does look as if terrorism law is being misused, at least in respect of the mass arrests of people for merely holding signs expressing support for Palestine Action.' Your restrained words are developed and illustrated in a most helpful way. Thank you, DAG. Terrorism laws in the hands of any politicians are dangerous, in my opinion; and if politicians are then supported by the higher judiciary - like the Supreme Court in Trump's USA - a variety of historical precedents stare out at us.
Thank you for your delicate unpicking of some of the pitfalls in this legislation. We welcome your views which help us to understand the real issues more clearly.
Thank you for your comments.
I too listened to the judgement and found it to be rather more sensible than the High Court decision. I have no objection to proscription of what is a violent organisation - with sledgehammers as the tool of choice.
Like you however I am concerned at the wording of section 12 (1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It has the strange effect of allowing someone to approve of a proscribed organisation, but not to try to convince anyone-else that he’s right unless he’s at least fairly sure that he will fail to do so.
He can also seemingly ask for money or materials for the proscribed organisation under Section 12 (1), but section 12 (1A) would prevent him from explaining how he justifies that request: if successful he would thereby have encouraged support for the proscribed organisation - unless he was talking to the converted.
Apart from it being very poor drafting, it means that a whole load of pensioners holding up banners supporting Palestine Action are in breach of S 12(1A). No doubt it was a cunning plan on the part of Palestine Action to encourage their support in order to give the impression that they couldn’t possibly be a terrorist organisation – how could it be, granted the amount of white hair, dog collars, Zimmer frames and arthritis on show? Surely they would not approve of violence. I cannot see, however, what the public interest is in actually prosecuting them.
The destruction of property belonging to a corporation whose business is genocide isn't "violence" though. That's kind of the whole point here.
Hmmm - I've started to read the judgment. Five Court of Appeal judges and twenty-three learned friends.... Five Court of Appeal judges is very rare. One feels that those listing the case 'doth protest [a little] too much'. Did the decision really take such judicial weight to arrive at?...
I don’t think that is an issue.
The High Court at first instance sat with three, including the President of the Kings Bench Division. As such it would be more surprising had the Court of Appeal bench not expanded to three.
And yes, the possibility of disapplying such a proscription should have the weightiest bench available, either way.
When history writes the judgment of the English judiciary of today, it will convict them of enabling or mandating two genocides (against Palestinians and against trans people) and rubberstamping the United Kingdom's descent into an illiberal, authoritarian – indeed, a fascist – shithole. It will name them as collaborators and place them alongside Pétain, Quisling, and Victor Emmanuel III of Italy.
It sickens me that I am demanded to have respect for laws which encode oppression and evil and for judges who carry out that oppression and evil with such zeal. Breaking *objects* belonging to a defence contractor does not compare to the systematised mass murder of people, and particularly of children, on the basis of their ethnicity and religion, and I will not indulge the canard that they do, or that the former is somehow worse than the latter.
Over a pint last night my friend, a wise old bird & former solicitor, posited the following way forward.
1 Palestine Action (or any organisation like them) be required to present a constitution which specifically prohibits violent protest/ criminal damage etc in their name. Anyone who does either of above or similar should be prosecuted.
2 HMG offers an amnesty to all its citizens currently clogging up the judicial system for sitting down with a PA placard.
3 Peaceful protest can continue & so can the work of the courts dealing with far more important business.
Driver Andy