to think that just because you say something about Israel and Gaza does not mean that you should be threatened with arrest under the terrorism act?

[cakeorwine]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

She had a sign saying "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide"

She was threatened with arrest under the terrorism act because a certain group that has been deemed to be a terrorist group also share those same views - and therefore the lady was supporting a terrorist group.

In the encounter, which she filmed, one officer told her: “Mentioning freedom of Gaza, Israel, genocide, all of that all come under proscribed groups, which are terror groups that have been dictated by the government.”

He went on to say that the phrase “Free Gaza” was “supportive of Palestine Action”, adding it was an offence “to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, namely Palestine Action is an offence under section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act”. The officer told her she had committed that offence.

I can think of many groups who share those same beliefs. Having that belief does not mean you support that group.

A Kent police spokesperson said: “Under the Terrorism Act it is a criminal offence to carry or display items that may arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation such as Palestine Action.”

YANBU @cakeorwine.

Seems like prosecutions for sticking stickers on stuff and speaking out about the erasure of people isnt just a Tory thing.

Starmer should get a grip and change this bollocks, not continue their culture wars.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c771de5ypx7o

It appears that in this scenario the law was being used to govern her opinion more than her conduct. Used correctly or incorrectly is yet to be determined but this is Orwellian territory and not good.

And someone who confuses proscribed with prescribed is commenting ?

It looks like it

Thanks for your valuable contribution

How do people on this thread feel about someone calling the protestor a he?

What an unedifying take for anyone who thinks they are morally superior.

Even more fuckwittery to align yourself to a cause that's been put on the terrorism list.

It's not the "cause" that's been proscribed, just the organisation.

I thought so. Imagine sniggering about someone's looks and saying they should enter a war zone.

You're correct. I don't join in with the tiktok fashion of chanting slogans I'm brainwashed into chanting. I've got far more about me than that. 👍

That it’s completely irrelevant to the subject matter, but do keep trying to deflect. It’s entertaining, if nothing else.

Put your pearls down love.

Thought you were hiding the thread. Funny how everyone, without exception, that announces their departure, never, ever, actually leaves when they say they’re going to.

You're back.

So you seem to think supporting the cause has been banned under terrorism leglisation?

Yet supporting a cause has not been banned, Only expressing an opinion that is supportive of a proscribed organisation

A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and

(b)in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.]

The usual ofcourse.

Not looks. Making a point that it seems more likely a man than a woman.

and yet in the newspaper article on thIs thread everyone is saying she. Reflecting compelled speech - which is but another side of the coin of what is being criticised

You're the one spitting feathers love.

It’s making the point ability the hypocrisy of the left though isn’t it - including this protestor

You think you are morally superior because you are a keyboard warrior instead?

This isn't specifically to you, do you see the irony in your criticism?

The thread is about being arrested under the Terrorism Act.

It doesn't matter who expressed an opinion. It matters what was expressed.

And it's not illegal under the Terrorism Act to express what this person said.

What is ‘compelled speech’ with regard to Israel and Gaza?

I haven't seen any evidence that she's a man but apparently you're an expert. Everyone has a talent.

You'll notice I've not shared my opinion on Israel and Gaza as I really want this thread to be about what someone can say or how they can protest in today's society without fear of arrest under the Terrorism Act.

And there are people who are attempting to derail this into other areas.

The person protesting is upset about not being able to say free Gaza - but I strongly suspect that he (and many of the people on the thread) supports people not being able to say that he’s a man and use he.

compelling speech both ways

i think people should be able to say both
(but i also think there are some slogans that can become so linked to terrorist orgs that they are supporting them even if not actually saying that)