UK ban on Palestine Action unlawful, high court judges rule

If a group acting for a cause I agreed with used violence and destruction to achieve their aims, it wouldn't matter to me if they were proscribed or not, because I would switch any support/activism/fundraising to a non violent, non criminal, non terrorist group with the same aims. My rights and my speech would be unaffected.

I googled violent countries and it came up with Yemen. So then I thought about people who support Yemen and I remembered those pro-Palestine idiots who marched through London chanting 'Yemen Yemen make us proud, turn another ship around'.

Of course they weren't really supporting Yemen, but the Houthis whose slogan is Death to Israel and a Curse Upon Jews. It's not the whole country that's violent, but the Houthis absolutely are.

I definitely have opinions about those people who marched in support of the Houthis. This apparently makes me a dictator and you are now living in a dictatorship. 🤷‍♀️

Yes really! What whole countries are violent? Genuinely curious. You said it- you must have some countries in mind?

we can be against the Government illegally proscribing an organisation as terrorists
Who ever that organisation is

For me ( as it looks like some others on this thread ) It isn’t about what they stand for and whether we agree or disagree with them. It’s about the U.K. Government overstepping their rights in Law

I am anti hunt but if the Government decided to proscribe the Hunt as terrorists, when their actions didn’t meet that bar, I would still be here against that decision.

We cannot allow the Government to run roughshod over the Law

Really???
Centuries of it throughout the world
It’s a matter of historical fact

Which whole countries are violent?

The police have a right to arrest assailants with proportional means.
Of course I agree when the alternative would be all perps who resist arrest getting away scot free.

People support whole countries that are violent … it’s not up to me how people think.
But we are straying from the point of the thread here.

No it’s not!
We don’t live in a dictatorship and I am not a dictator

Interesting that you don’t have opinions on people who support ‘whole countries that are violent’.

The police have a right to arrest assailants with proportional means.
Of course I agree when the alternative would be all perps who resist arrest getting away scot free.

People support whole countries that are violent … it’s not up to me how people think.
But we are straying from the point of the thread here.

You are projecting here. Personally I am against all violence and think that it is right the the person involved is being criminally charged. I also respect courts decisions knowing that they have far more evidence than I do. Other people have also agreed that criminal charges were the right thing. I don't really know what else you want from people? Should we start muttering about hanging and shooting people on sight too? Beating our chests and wailing?

My 'agenda' is exactly what my posts have said and sticking to the topic of the thread which was the unlawful proscription of Palestine Action which was done on the grounds of property damage. I don't agree with governments acting unlawfully, overstepping and restricting people's rights and I think an investigation should be done into why exactly that has happened in this case. That's all there is to my agenda.

I see, so you approve of the police’s actions in trying to subdue the assailants and just neglected to mention it.

Do you think that people should support an organisation who are so reckless and violent?

You are projecting here. Personally I am against all violence and think that it is right the the person involved is being criminally charged. I also respect courts decisions knowing that they have far more evidence than I do. Other people have also agreed that criminal charges were the right thing. I don't really know what else you want from people? Should we start muttering about hanging and shooting people on sight too? Beating our chests and wailing?

My 'agenda' is exactly what my posts have said and sticking to the topic of the thread which was the unlawful proscription of Palestine Action which was done on the grounds of property damage. I don't agree with governments acting unlawfully, overstepping and restricting people's rights and I think an investigation should be done into why exactly that has happened in this case. That's all there is to my agenda.

Is that not what was said at the court case rather than an opinion? It wasn't 'people' giving airtime to self defence it was lawyers in court. Do you not want people to talk about what happened in court? I think that it is pretty relevant if you want an understanding of verdicts reached.

Just had a look through the “circular arguments”, though I think you might be wrong about who is going around in circles. You know the people making weapons aren’t part of Britain’s national security and are not military owned.

They are a private corporation making weapons that are being used in a manner that governments across Europe and the rest of the world are questioning and many are using terms like war crimes and genocide. Even Israeli soldiers have gone on camera to document how these drones are being used to indiscriminately target civilians (including children) and blow up civilian infrastructure.

The people breaking in are committing a crime - they are breaking into a corporations building, not a government building. The people who are being financially hit by the vandalism are corporations who are profiteering from the deaths of civilians. This is not a threat to national security, it is a threat to corporate’s profit margins and Israel’s ability to continue their genocide. Vandalism is a crime but it is not as reprehensible as making drones for people who are targeting civilians!

Your are missing what we said

both @KoalaKoKo and I are stating what the defence said in court
…nothing more.

Of note on another matter brought up here
‘ During the trial one juror asked the judge whether it would count as a lawful excuse if a defendant believed they were performing a life-saving action by destroying weapons used to kill civilians in an illegal genocide. Johnson said it would not.’ News paper quote, can’t remember which one I’m afraid.

Literally in the post I quoted.

Also you yesterday when you said ‘The defence stated the attacker had been sprayed with a chemical substance by the police, could not see properly and was trying to protect another person at the time.’

I wonder if it were a Tommy Robinson supporter with a sledgehammer that the police had been trying to arrest people would give less time to the claim of ‘self defence’ if he then broke a female police officer’s spine with a sledgehammer as she lay on the floor.

In fact I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t give that argument any airtime at all, unless to dismiss it as obvious bollocks and to mutter darkly about how quick to violence those Tommy Robinson thugs are.

I think it is possible to both give what was said in court and to distance yourself from that argument as obvious hogwash rather than a genuine defence in response to ‘violence from security guards’ and police who, lest we forget, were doing their jobs in response to people committing a crime.

Is that not what was said at the court case rather than an opinion? It wasn't 'people' giving airtime to self defence it was lawyers in court. Do you not want people to talk about what happened in court? I think that it is pretty relevant if you want an understanding of verdicts reached.