Palestine Action

[Vic]

No I will not. We have been here before with s.44. Significant dissent spells trouble. The court is likely, imho, to find the prescription is lawful but will criticise the legislation in no uncertain manner. The UN will not accept the ruling nor will those human rights organisations.
It is always the correct thing to do in a democracy to kick against laws which are not democratic. The American revolution was driven by that principle and so were many freedom movements. Do you think that dissenters in Putin’s Russia should obey the law? The women’s suffrage movement, and the Pankhurst family, split on just this matter. The suffragets adopted violence but the suffragists, the original movement, obeyed the law and are forgotten. The people at Peterloo were disobeying the law; was it right to cut them down?
Lawful is not the same as democratic. Lawfulness alone can never be the stick to beat dissenters with. The principal, as always, is Democratic consent, which is not the same as personal consent, so you had better not drink a pint in CB2!

Actually, they weren't disobeying the law at Peterloo until someone announced they were.

 

[Vic]

This post mentions that the proscription of PA was included in a job lot in a single Statutory order. This is most unusual. The gov did this as they feared losing if PA alone was on the order paper. A clear attempt to circumvent consent principles. It could result in an adverse finding against the gov in the court case.

If enough MPs tell the government that it's stupid, I suspect the government approach may be to offer a half-hearted defence and lose then say "the courts have decided". Then someone will call the judge an enemy of the people.

Calling 500 witnesses including blind and aged convicts would be laughing stock territory.

 

[BobKowalski]

... but they aren't a terrorist organisation.

They are if you live in fucking Gaza.

 

[Vic]

... but they aren't a terrorist organisation.

Of course not, and Palestinians apparently don't mind being bombed and starved because they have a different attitude to life and death.

The thread gets ever weirder.

 

[The blue phantom]

... but they aren't a terrorist organisation.

Why would our Government proscribe them a terriost organisation when they are shovelled money off them, send them weopens and use spy planes to give them locations of children to slaughter.

 

[RiversideBlue]

Who has PA lynched?

It was just an example. You could substitute what I wrote for any inflammatory statement.

 

[RiversideBlue]

"I support IDF genocide" = legal
"I support action against the Palestine genocide" = illegal

Aren't they both legal. Saying you support the group Palestine Action is whats illegal. Or am i wrong?

 

[Vic]

It was just an example. You could substitute what I wrote for any inflammatory statement.

I think you've made the point. The state can use various laws to suppress obnoxious or "hate" views without invoking anti-terrorism laws and diminishing the seriousness of real terrorism.

 

[Vic]

Aren't they both legal. Saying you support the group Palestine Action is whats illegal. Or am i wrong?

You're wrong. Police have been arresting people for anything which could be construed as support for PA.

Here’s What’s Happened Since the Palestine Action Ban | Novara Media

This weekend more protesters will risk arrest under terror legislation by defying the proscription of Palestine Action. Here’s a run down of what’s happened since the ban.

novaramedia.com

 

[RiversideBlue]

You're wrong. Police have been arresting people for anything which could be construed as support for PA.

Here’s What’s Happened Since the Palestine Action Ban | Novara Media

This weekend more protesters will risk arrest under terror legislation by defying the proscription of Palestine Action. Here’s a run down of what’s happened since the ban.

novaramedia.com

Wow. I stand corrected. That is shitty. I assumed it would just be for showing obvious support of PA.

 

[VOOMER]

It's a publicity stunt to try and show that the government is being even handed.

 

[hilts]

This is correct. Whether the proscription of Palestine Action was right or wrong, there are many ways people can legitimately and legally protest about Gaza. And regardless of my views, I support their right to do that. Supporting a banned organisation isn't one of those ways however.

Yesterday was akin to someone driving their car and ramming a mobile speed camera van, resulting in a driving ban. Then driving past another, while serving that ban and flicking a v-sign at it.

And imagine if it was Yaxley-Lennon leading a march supporting a proscribed far right group. I strongly suspect the same people complaining about people being arrested en masse for supporting a banned group wouldn't be quite so vocal in their protests about mass arrests in this case.

Do you believe that PA are a terrorist group?

 

[hilts]

I never said that at all. Dont twist my words. They could have joined the other protest. They didnt need to back whats considered a terrorist group to do fight the issue. I happen to agree with the main protests byt backing a group considered terrorists, taking actions against our defense forces, and disabling a plane that had been used for aid drops, ian't the way to do it.

You failed to notice the word IF, I have no idea what you think outside of moaning about some non violent protesters including grannies and a priest.

 

[hilts]

You do have to laugh though, It's perfectly fine for folk to walk around with a placard saying

"I support the IDF and Israels occupation"

Yeah but the govt tells us what a terrorist group is and killing kids is nowhere near as bad as paint on a plane.


Samuel Jackson made a film about it, he offed the baddie Nick Knowles at the end.

 

[Palerider]

FFS. If Israel and Palestine both followed International Law to the letter would they be in the position they are now? If one side breaks International Law then, morally and ethically, they lose the right to complain when the other side breaks International Law (the we broke the law but you broke it worser hole). So, perhaps, on balance, it's best that everyone sticks to the law and if you want a law changed then protest peacefully and make your argument. If your argument is strong (slavery, women's votes) change will happen. If it's not (trans debate) then change will not happen.

 

[stag]

I work for the Met police and haven't been involved in policing the protests, someone from my team worked it yesterday however and has told me that they were under instructions to arrest anybody with a sign mentioning Palestine, not 'Palestine Action', just Palestine. To say this makes me uncomfortable is an under statement

 

[The blue phantom]

I work for the Met police and haven't been involved in policing the protests, someone from my team worked it yesterday however and has told me that they were under instructions to arrest anybody with a sign mentioning Palestine, not 'Palestine Action', just Palestine. To say this makes me uncomfortable is an under statement

A few of us have mentioned this so thanks for confirming it.

So there we go, it was/is all about Palestine.

 

[calumdown]

I work for the Met police and haven't been involved in policing the protests, someone from my team worked it yesterday however and has told me that they were under instructions to arrest anybody with a sign mentioning Palestine, not 'Palestine Action', just Palestine. To say this makes me uncomfortable is an under statement

fucking hell.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

I work for the Met police and haven't been involved in policing the protests, someone from my team worked it yesterday however and has told me that they were under instructions to arrest anybody with a sign mentioning Palestine, not 'Palestine Action', just Palestine. To say this makes me uncomfortable is an under statement

is that actually true though?

Can’t say for London, but I have a few mates in greater Manchester police, who have dealt with the protests in town and haven’t heard that at all.

 

[Vic]

FFS. If Israel and Palestine both followed International Law to the letter would they be in the position they are now? If one side breaks International Law then, morally and ethically, they lose the right to complain when the other side breaks International Law (the we broke the law but you broke it worser hole). So, perhaps, on balance, it's best that everyone sticks to the law and if you want a law changed then protest peacefully and make your argument. If your argument is strong (slavery, women's votes) change will happen. If it's not (trans debate) then change will not happen.

Yeah, wait till the Palestinians have all been cleansed, and then say our argument was strong.