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.”

It's a statement saying that Gaza should be free.

It does not say "I support (insert name of proscribed prganisation)"

The law clearly states that it is illegal to express support for a proscribed organisation.

I think it's quite clear the difference between expressing support for such an organisation and expressing an opinion about a situation.

What intrrigues me is why this particular woman was targeted for arrest, when the marches have countless others with the same banners, chants, etc.

Naturally she'll present herself as some victimised innocent, but I can't help wondering if there was some additional intelligence we'ree not aware of which brought this about

It's a statement saying that Gaza should be free.

What does "free" look like in the context?

Can you explain what expressing support for a proscribed organisation would look like?

What statements would be deemed to be those that express support for a proscribed organisation?

Here are 2

1)Someone says "I think that there should be an independent Basque country"
2) Someone says "I support the ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna*"

The ETA is a proscribed organisation.

I think most people can tell the difference between an opinion and someone expressing support for a proscribed organisation

Can you?

That's the one. It certainly wouldn't mean the extermination of Jews, would it?

That's irrelevant to the conversation as this is NOT about the conflict but about what does expressing support look like.

Otherwise it's a derail.

Which of those statements I posted do you think should be illegal?

1. I believe in an independent Basque country
2. Expressing support for ETA

That's the one. It certainly wouldn't mean the extermination of Jews, would it?

Oh no never, absolutely not! After all, it's in the Hamas charter that they want nothing more than to live peacefully alongside their Jewish neighbours.

That was under the guise of official police business. Do you not know the difference between legitimate and illegitimate arrests? To use that example is in extremely bad taste.

It’s verging on totalitarianism.

As I said, this is about what is legal and illegal to say under the Terrorism Act and expressing support for a proscribed organisation

What do you think expressing support for a proscribed organisation looks like

The ETA is such a group

Which of those statements I posted do you think should be illegal?

1. I believe in an independent Basque country
2. Expressing support for ETA

Do you think Laura and the rest of the protestors got the memo from Hamas? Of course, the OP believes free Gaza and from the river to the sea means a happy life for the region.

I am deliberately not talking about my beliefs on here so please don't put words in my mouth and attempt to derail the conversation

I will ask again:

Which of those statements I posted do you think should be illegal?

1. I believe in an independent Basque country
2. Expressing support for ETA

Which of those is expressing support for a proscribed organisation?

If you're inciting death and violence you should be arrested. Including that goon who chanted death to the IDF. Same with from river to the sea. Don't pretend you don't know what that means.

You clearly don't understand that anything that denotes support for Palestine is being tainted by distortion of history of the conflict. The fact that you say this is nothing about the conflict, reaffirms that. Free Palestine and from the river to the sea doesn't mean Palestinians will be living free of Israel oppression. As you don't understand or believe that, westerners will continue to scratch their heads as to why they are now attracting police attention.

You clearly don't understand the difference in that statement.

Do you think the police will be arresting anyone on a demonstration who have that statement on a placard under the UK Terrorism Act Section 12?

If not, why not? Surely they are "expressing support for a proscribed organisation"

They would then be failing in their duty to detect terrorists.

Head.banging. brick. wall.

Yes I am

You seem to think that expressing an opinion about what should happen in Gaza is the same as expressing support for a proscribed organisation

You can't answer the ETA question.

So is that a yes - the police should be arresting anyone with a sign saying "Gaza should be free" under Section 12 of the UK Terrorism Act or a No

(You might want to check what the Met Police have said on this )

I know what the Met has said. I also know this woman was threatened with arrest and not arrested. Maybe if idiots didn't keep pushing the limits with regards to protests, they would be as peaceful as we are being led to believe. With regards to today's (latest) coalition protest, it's clear that the police are going to be vigilant for anyone conducting themselves in alliance with terrorism. Free Palestine/Israel genocide etc banners will be fine. As much as the dopes presenting them don't know their intended meaning.

This

There are two sections: those that know exactly what it means and those too stupid to know. The former, of course, will happily accommodate the latter in their naivety and misplaced good intentions. I am glad the Met are going to be all over this, today.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 , the Palestinians voted in Hamas 2006/2007 and proceeded to launch rockets continuously into Israel from then on. The aid money they received from all the western countries they used to build tunnels and make themselves billionaires. They committed a disgusting atrocity on Oct 7th and then could have ended the war by releasing the hostages which they refuse to do. Useful idiots like that person are a Hamas propoganda dream

You've already had one post, which was a personal attack, deleted, haven't you?

She was threatened with arrest under Section 12. Then that threat was withdrawn when she gave her details.

Isn't that strange?

Surely you can't just threaten someone with arrest under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act unless they give you their details

Either they are breaking the law by expressing support for a proscribed organisation and should be arrested or they are not and should not be threatened with arrest

Threatening someone with arrest under the UK Terrorism Act because they don't give you their details seems like a draconian thing to do.

And if the police have grounds for suspicion, then they should arrest someone.

But it's not a hard question to answer:

Should the police arrest people with such signs under the UK Terrorism Act?

I think those police officers got a bit carried away. Would not like to see that interpretation applied more widely.