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.”

Keyboard warrior for posting on Mumsnet? Welcome to the club, then. The morally superior advocates are those who are condescending Gazans. The Thunberg selfie brigade.

OP I agree with you in general, I’m not a lawyer and I think there is likely a nuanced difference legally between happening to have some views in common with a proscribed organisation and saying that you support eg. Palestine Action specifically. So I think the police have slightly misunderstood and are in the wrong here. It’s actually clear from the video that they’re slightly unsure of their footing on this themselves, only committing themselves to saying she “might” be committing an offence.

I do agree it feels slightly Orwellian/dystopian/draconian and frightening for the police to be essentially accusing people of “thought crimes” (and like a pp I would love to know why the police have the time for this and aren’t busy tackling much more pressing and more criminal behaviour elsewhere). It is important for us to maintain freedom of speech and freedom of protest, no matter which “side” of this conflict you are on.

Having said that, I will also say that in reality, she was NOT arrested and it was very clear that the police actually just wanted to move her on in the full knowledge that she’d likely just go elsewhere locally with her protest, rather than come down hard with the full force of the law.

I’m also noticing what another pp said about eg. Kneecap and Bob Vylan etc. (and even all the crowds chanting “from the river to the sea” etc) basically being allowed to say much more inflammatory things that more fairly come under this offence, with no real consequences or comeback it seems.

I will also say that I am N Irish and grew up there during the Troubles. I can tell you that at that time someone at a major roundabout draped in an Irish flag let’s say instead of a keffiyeh, and holding up a sign saying “I believe in a united Ireland” or similar would 100 percent have been assumed not only by police but by absolutely everybody passing to be an IRA supporter. And I can’t imagine the police would have left them alone either. And it would likely have stirred up further trouble from the other side. So I do think when a conflict is active, although we do have free speech, we should be careful how we use it basically.

Is the person in that Guardian pic a man?

Two wrongs doesn't make a right. October 7th attacks were horrible crimes too. One set of horrible actions (October 7th) doesn't justify another set of horrible actions (what Israel has done since). Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

And that's without even considering the proportionality of the response. I believe the IDF have killed over 70,000 people in Gaza now, and that over half are women and children.

And now they're starving those who are left, and killing desperate, hungry people at aid stations

Oh ok, gotcha. You don’t understand what compelled speech means. 👍

Do you need help with how to hide the thread?

That's quite a statement - you could argue those same statements are linked to other groups that are not proscribed.

So if a non proscribed group and a proscribed group have the same statements linked to then, is that expressing an opinion supportive of that organisation.

I would have thought it would be quite obvious what an opinion that is supportive of an proscribed organisation would look like.

Yes, but we bloody warned you all when the Southport thing happened and some stupid credulous woman who believed the internet rumour that the killer was an asylum seeker lodged in a hotel, wrote "set fire to the hotels full of the bastards for all I care" and got sentenced to two and a half years in prison. She will be let out early for good behaviour because she's just some idiot who got carried away one evening and decided to give the world the benefit of her brainless opinion on Twitter. She was prosecuted under the law that is designed to deal with someone giving a hate-fuelled oration at a neo-Nazi rally.

And you all went, eurgh, horrible racist woman, she deserves to go to prison.

And now today some other wacko was sitting harmlessly by the side of the road with a sign saying that a foreign power thousands of miles away, which is currently winning a war with its neighbour by virtue of much superior military technology, is committing genocide. An opinion which is quite widely shared. And the police showed up and threatened to arrest them, under the law that is designed to deal with someone who would, say, publicly express their support for the 7/7 bombers.

It should be dawning on a few people now that we are being governed by someone who is basically a lawyer-cop. His reaction to hearing something doesn't like is to make it illegal. He's also thin-skinned and tetchy, as we can see from the number of elected representatives he expels from his own party.

And I voted for the bastard.

You really haven't understood the issue.

Seriously, every day someone's stood at that roundabout with a sign.

I'm trying to think of the last time someone was arrested. It was a few years ago though and there were loads of them.

Completely disproportionate in my view.

Yes, because unlike you, I'm not sneering at people who advocate for a cause from somewhere up on your high horse.

You’re right that people can be hypocrites and only support freedom of speech for causes they care about. I wish that wasn’t the case.

Don't be daft. This is police overstepping, as they often do, and it happened loads under the last government- remember Covid, and the Sarah Everard protests? Anti terror legilslation has been around for ages.

The Southport muppet was spreading racial hatred and misinformation causing violence and rioting.

The example in this thread is of someone criticising a country perpetuating extreme violence, which is permitted as part of one of our fundamental human rights Nigel Farage wants to ger rid of, freedom of speech. It's completely different.

The protestor is upset about facing the threat of arrest under the Terrorism Act which is a very serious thing to be arrested for.

It was someone in a dinosaur costume. Have no idea what they were protesting.

Again: why is this in the news now when it been happening for years?

It's a load of shit. I'm starting to get angry with it. You don't arrest someyfor holding a sign unless you're an oppressor.

What's wrong - I thought you liked free speech?

Support.

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and

(b)the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).

[F1(1A)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

Can you explain how this person is breaking the law under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act?

No, youŕe just signalling your virtue on the Internet.

The irony. Again.

I'm sure a human rights lawyer will jump in and tell the police they made an unlawful arrest. Maybe the human rights lawyer, who was arrested, can help. On second thoughts...

I was also all over the Covid leglisation when it came out about what the actual law said you could and couldn't do.

It really helps to know what you can and can't do.

But you seemed to be convinced they have broken the law under this leglisation

I have given you the law - so maybe you can explain your thinking?

Being 'all over the legislation' doesn't mean you've got yourself a gotcha.

completely different? The rise in anti semitism in the UK says differenr

I don't see it, but some people think 'they can always tell'. It's a tough time for anyone not conforming to identikit femininity.