UK government weaponising the British justice system to punish its own citizens on behalf of a foreign state committing genocide. Dark days for this country.
at this point only the green party would tell israel to fuck off
Where do they stand on requiring ID to use most of the internet? They seem like the only choice left
*the world
it’s actually a lovely country, you should visit sometime
anyone that wants to protest can form a new group called say “pally lovers r us” and have fun marching and doing speeches and stuff. just avoid military facilities and you’re good
“It is not, as it claims, a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes operating transparently in the open. It is a covert organisation that operates using secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy the property of third parties.
The suffragettes conducted a fucking bombing campaign, often directly against politicians - PA have been extremely restrained in comparison.
The suffragettes conducted a fucking bombing campaign, often directly against politicians - PA have been extremely restrained in comparison.
This is the thing: If a movement has an radical, even violent arm, the politicians are more inclined to get the “moderate” part of the movement on their side… soooo… make your own conclusions…
Shows the judiciary isn’t fit for purpose. These judges need to be deposed.
They are following the law. That’s what they are there for.
Upholding a corrupt law is not following the law.
We can see clearly that these laws are not being applied to terrorists and instead being applied to anti-corruption organizations. This is an obvious perversion of the 2000 law. To use the law in this way is not only dishonest and morally corrupt, but it also infringes on the very foundation of democracy.
The only way you could rationalize using this law in this way is if you were defending a genocide which is exactly what is happening. I am not sure if you are actually an advocate of genocide, but by declaring it is lawful it shows that you are.
A simplistic argument to be sure. In that linked article however,
But in the eyes of the law, in the UK, PA can be labelled as terrorists. Under the Terrorism Act 2000 this applies if they plan or carry out ‘serious damage to property’ if that is ‘designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public’ and when that is ‘for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.’
Therefore, following the law, proscription is lawful. It’s not the courts’ place to legislate. The fault is with MPs not judges.
Absolute garbage. You have a few people who attack a genocide factory and you have a bunch of people cheering them on. I totally get that people who commit property damage and hurt people deserve consequences but pretending they are a terrorist group is ridiculous.
If you read the examples that lawmakers listed for the 2000 law, they all involve deaths. It is clear that property damage alone was not a major consideration. They are misinterpreting the law to try and make any political group into a terrorist organization. This is abhorrent behavior.
What is even more insane is then jailing 3,000 more people that have nothing to do with this crime just because they support the sentiment that the government is covering up a genocide. Hauling away hundreds of peaceful protesters like absolute goons.
I swear the inability to self reflect is going to kill us. As far as your point, the judges could have ruled differently. They could have easily upheld the decision instead of adding to the madness. This is the definition of poor governance and a complete breakdown of human rights.
They could have easily upheld the decision? Based on what law? The specific actions required under the Terrorism Act 2000 include serious property damage. Also serious violence against a person. Both of which apply here and led to the JTAC designation of Palestine Action as a terror group.
While it’s egregious to call property damage “terrorism”, that is how the law stands. It is for legislators to change that, not the judiciary.
Are you saying they couldn’t of ruled otherwise!? Judges have discretion. You argument is pretty ridiculous.
Couldn’t have
The purpose of the Court of Appeals is to evaluate the lower court’s application of judicial discretion. The lower court’s decision is only overturned when it is determined there has been an “abuse of discretion” - that the judge’s discretion does not follow the law as laid down.
So in this process, the Appeal Court judge has to go back and see what is on the statute books, and make their judgement on a point of law, rather than discretion. They have to follow legislation.
It would then be for the Supreme Court to decide whether that legislation was consistent, but that’s not for the Appeals.
Did you complain when the Daily Hate Mail described judges as “enemies of the people”?
Kinda sounds like Israel owns the “justice” system.
Don’t get it twisted, Israel was a British colony from the start.
Yes, it is an extension of western foreign policy, pop the jews in there, act indignant when israel’s neighbours fight back against their oppression “you can’t hurt the jews look at what they’ve gone through” it’s pretty much the perfect colony
Colour me fucking shocked.
From the FT
The Court of Appeal judgment was handed down by Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, Master of the Rolls Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Andrew Edis, Lord Justice Clive Lewis and Lady Justice Philippa Whipple.
A quick search of who they are, and what they stand for should show you all you need to know.
Yes, we’ve investigated ourselves and we found that we did nothing wrong.
“Lawful” not mean moral
Just another in a long list.
Yeah, that’s the problem. Terrorism laws were a kneejerk reaction to 9/11 and 7/7 that handed sweeping undemocratic powers to ministers without adequate checks that liberal-minded people have consistently been saying would lead to exactly this kind of obvious abuse. The courts have little choice but to accept it - the time to stop it was when the law was passed, but no party (except maybe the Lib Dems) would overturn it because liberalism is dead and not a vote winner.
