I have to share this from The Guardian:
The co-founder of Palestine Action has won a legal challenge to the home secretary's decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws.
The proscription of Palestine Action, which categorised it alongside the likes of Islamic State, was the first of a direct action protest group and attracted widespread condemnation as well as a civil disobedience campaign defying the ban, during which more than 2,000 people have been arrested.
From 5 July last year, being a member of – or showing support for – the group became an offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, challenged the ban at a trial in the high court in London, part of which was held in secret and which concluded in December.
On Friday, three judges, led by the president of the king's bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, ruled the decision to proscribe the group was unlawful but the ban on the group would remain to give the government time to appeal.
They allowed the challenge on two of four grounds, namely that there was “a very significant interference” with the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association and that the then home secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action was not consistent with her own policy.
Let's just note the keywords:
The decision to proscribe the group was unlawful.
My emphasis added.
The person who acted unlawfully was the Home Secretary, not the protestors.
I am not exonerating actual criminal actions, if they happened. Those undertaking such action know the risk they are taking. But we are not talking about that, and Yvette Cooper, when suggesting that her actions were justified by a "terrorism" threat, was always completely absurd. What she made punishable by 14 years in prison was free speech condemning genocide, which her government supported, as Wes Streeting has now effectively acknowledged, although it seems he did nothing to stop it.
A wise Home Secretary would back down now.
We do not have a wise Home Secretary. Expect an appeal.
A wise Prime Minister would now say they take note, and consider how his government might both uphold free speech and stop genocide (which is continuing).
We do not have a wise Prime Minister.
The corruption in Whitehall goes on as a result.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Yvette Cooper is now Foreign Secretary where she has more power to assist the Israeli state.
The present Home Secretary is to appeal. I can’t see on what grounds unless they pick the judges.
Thinking of the 2000 arrested, I presume, not being a lawyer, the charges under the Terrorism Act will now lapse. But I won’t be surprised if they try to continue the charges.
The Labour backbenchers must be getting restless.
I am sure they will just defer trial dates. Not hard with the collapse of our justice system.
“the decision to proscribe the group was unlawful but the ban on the group would remain”
So, you broke the law, but I’m going to allow you to carry on anyway. What kind of twisted logic is that?
That’s the logic of corrupted power for you.
At least she isn’t her Iranian counterpart who recently genocided 30,000 protestors.
I think that time will show that Mossad/the CIA are due an enormous amount of credit for those numbers.
Whilst I have little sympathy with the Iranian state when you can be incarcerated here for holding up a piece of cardboard we’re pretty far along that spectrum ourselves.
Angela Epstein was recently a guest on BBC radio Scotland about Andrew MW and the royals, defending the monarchy and dismissing AMW as one bad apple! The National described the 3 pro-monarchy guests as sycophantic (vs 1 anti-monarchy guest) and of course the article was biased.
I had a look for Angela Epstein online, and came across this article of 7th December 2024 where she demands that Palestine Action be proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Was it her idea or was she just one of a whole orchard full of “bad apples” pressuring the government? Anyway, if you want to read her article here it is:
https://www.thejc.com/opinion/palestine-action-must-be-blacklisted-as-terrorists-wnczsz5b
What I really cannot grasp is that if we are the intelligent species we purport to be why don’t we just do the simple things?
Government is (or should be) about listening, and adhering to, the will of the people. When the enormous groundswell over Palestine was becoming evident why did the government not just sample the majority view, be guided by that and avoid all the expense and upheaval that has subsequently resulted.
If in the (very doubtful) likelihood that public opinion did not support Palestine Action then they at least would have known to revisit their motives/methods.
I read about this yesterday. Thank you for the analysis and comments from those who know more about our legal system.
If only we had a what?
For goodness sake Richard, be reasonable!
🙂
I am an unreasonable man.