The judges acknowledged that the proscription of Palestine Action was controversial, adding: “We recognise too that Palestine Action is supported by many otherwise law-abiding citizens, and that it is engaged in peaceful as well as non-peaceful protest. It is, nonetheless, a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism.

“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. Palestine Action’s activities have caused injury as well as property damage.”

all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 18 points 4 months ago (1 child)

The UK legal system is so far fucked, they are out of control, and there are no political parties that will even call them on it. Cancelling the right to protest, forbidding the defenses explaining why they did something like blocking a road, idk how involved they are in cancelling jury trials.

Seriously, wake the fuck up, and agitate, the right is utilizing the anger because we have no one doing so ourselves. Where are your balls england? Where are they at? Stand the fuck up.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    You know it was always fucked that it's a systemic problem, you only need to to look at a lot of the rulings during the troubles for that.

    But most English people barely even know the North of Ireland exists, nevermind the atrocities the English have committed here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    using violence to destroy (..) property

    That's not violence, ffs, that's just vandalism! Which is a MUCH lesser crime and pretending otherwise is the death knell of free society 🤬

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 27 comments in c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk view that post
    [–] 35 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    “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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    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..

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 88 points 4 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Kinda sounds like Israel owns the "justice" system.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Don't get it twisted, Israel was a British colony from the start.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    “Lawful” not mean moral

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 43 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    Shows the judiciary isn't fit for purpose. These judges need to be deposed.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    They are following the law. That’s what they are there for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (8 children)

    Upholding a corrupt law is not following the law.

    https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/centre-for-the-study-of-corruption/2025/08/08/why-it-matters-whether-palestine-action-are-really-terrorists/

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Judges are not arbitrators of truth and a different group of judges could have came to a different conclusion or perhaps even the same conclusion but for different reasons.

    If you are arguing against this fact I am not sure what to say. On the other hand, if you are arguing that this has been decided so it is the law now I will kindly point out that judges can and do get it wrong. This is also not the end, unless they deny an appeal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    This was the appeal. Judges are not arbiters, that’s why the Court of Appeals exists to hold them accountable to the law. The issue here isn’t the judiciary, its the legislation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    The High Court ruled in against the designation and the appeal court got it wrong. If the appeal court were to grant their appeal and the decision was reversed then what would you say.

    At any rate, is the law really the problem or how it is applied, to which I will kindly refer back to the High Courts decision. It is clear there hasn't been an actual escalation beyond a couple instances out of hundreds. This designation made no sense from the start and was politically motivated.

    Expecting a bunch of corrupt politicians to fix this through a rewrite of the law is a little much. They just need to not apply it improperly. A legislative solution may work, but it is not necessary.

    This problem could have been solved by the government not appealing in the first place. As I stated before this is a complete breakdown of governance and judgement unless you take into account the government trying to cover up a genocide. Then perhaps this all makes sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • 1 comment in c/world view that post
    [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Dur, I'm a five-strong panel, including the two most senior judges in England and Wales, dur, fascism is so cool with me, duuuur.

  • source