"[Palestine Action’s] campaign is intended to close down the operations of a company pursuing a lawful business. [...] Palestine Action is not engaged in any exercise of persuasion, or at least not the type of persuasion that is consistent with democratic values and the rule of law."
This quote is the perfect encapsulation of everything that is worthless about the law. The law has no moral force or entitlement to respect when material support for an ongoing genocide is "lawful", but attempts to disrupt and halt that support in the face of wilful inaction by the state are "not consistent with democratic values and the rule of law".
Thank you for yet another clear explanation of matters legal. Have to say the wording in the quoted judgment excerpt “pursuing a lawful business” and “consistent with democratic values” is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting, given war crimes and genocide contravene all sorts of laws, both international and domestic. Tone deaf at best. As poster, Izzy, says, it’s just perverse that supplying weaponry that facilitates such activities is deemed lawful and aligned with democratic values while committing criminal damage in protest at that is deemed not only unlawful but an act of terrorism. What a time to be alive!
"[Palestine Action’s] campaign is intended to close down the operations of a company pursuing a lawful business. [...] Palestine Action is not engaged in any exercise of persuasion, or at least not the type of persuasion that is consistent with democratic values and the rule of law."
This quote is the perfect encapsulation of everything that is worthless about the law. The law has no moral force or entitlement to respect when material support for an ongoing genocide is "lawful", but attempts to disrupt and halt that support in the face of wilful inaction by the state are "not consistent with democratic values and the rule of law".
Wouldn't it have been better to use something like conspiracy to commit criminal damage or something like that than reach for the proscription lever?
Well, that is the sort of thing which they were being prosecuted for before, under the general criminal law of the land.
Thank you for yet another clear explanation of matters legal. Have to say the wording in the quoted judgment excerpt “pursuing a lawful business” and “consistent with democratic values” is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting, given war crimes and genocide contravene all sorts of laws, both international and domestic. Tone deaf at best. As poster, Izzy, says, it’s just perverse that supplying weaponry that facilitates such activities is deemed lawful and aligned with democratic values while committing criminal damage in protest at that is deemed not only unlawful but an act of terrorism. What a time to be alive!