UK ban on Palestine Action unlawful, high court judges rule

[purpletablet]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/13/uk-ban-palestine-action-unlawful-high-court-judges-rule

Does this mean people will no longer be arrested for holding up a sign saying “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”?

but sure they are not terrorists. That is the whole point.

What are you saying? Do you think arresting almost 3’000 people largely for holding up a sign is a good thing because you don’t agree with them?

Certain causes attract those types

I didn't say anything about the skin colour of the jury.

Do you deny that there are issues with prosecuting violence against women in this country?

Does breaking a woman's spine with a sledgehammer not count as violence against women?

Nobody says people holding up a sign or terrorists. They are supporting terrorists and terrorist actions. If the terrorists have been designated then that's illegal. The people holding the signs wanted to be arrested. That was the point of holding the signs. Its standard civil disobedience. Personally I wouldn't make the right to break someone's back the hill I would chose to die on but each to their own. If that's the choice you make don't expect sympathy.

I do hope that poster has been banned @MNHQ?

Apologies noble

you said ‘white man gets away with violence against a women’

you were referring to the perp not the Jury my mistake !

but you did, in so doing, bring skin colour and sex into the issue. Neither are relevant

Second paragraph.

I’m happy to comment on violence against women on a relevant thread. I’m not happy with the constant derailing of this one. ( See you over on the feminism threads )

Fracturing someone’s spine is violence. Whether they are a woman or a man and whether the perp or victim is white or any other colour. Obviously.

Im not seeing the free speech angle.
What is stopping people protesting for tye exact same goals, but without explicitly supporting a violent group who have committed acts of terror?

Have asked this in a few places but not had any justification so far.

I would guess the govt could make this point on appeal.

According to reports since PA were designated a terrorist organisation ( if you look back over the news)

many people and Organisations in this country and abroad disagreed.
The U.K. was warned they did not meet the bar
Those in support of them were doing so to stand up for the loss of free speech and the constant erosions of people rights to demonstrate by the U.K. Government

I said there are ways to support the people of Palestine without the need to support violence etc etc. It's not hard to understand.

I support the people of Palestine but not idiots who think breaking into a UK military airbase and causing millions if pounds worth of damage on planes than are NOT involved in any way in the conflict in Gaza or the idiots who cheered them on or support violence and criminal damage. Those useful idiots to some are pillock whom I don't support.

Its against the law to support a terrorist group
not a criminal one

by designating PA as a terrorist group the U.K. were trying to stop support.

People did not agree with that designation so came out in defiance of it.

You can’t use a ‘what if’ or ‘why didn’t you do something differently’. as part of the defence against the protestors. Only the actual actions can be judged. Only in cases such as negligence is it considered

We are talking about Palestine Action, one of whose male members fractured the spine of a woman who was on the floor, with a sledgehammer, on video, where the jury failed to reach a verdict and you think commenting on the low conviction rates for violence against women in this country isn’t relevant?

This case where a bloke bludgeoned a woman and we all saw him do it is different and doesn’t count?

What’s also notable is the lack of condemnation of the man bludgeoning the woman from people who would consider themselves to be progressive, like Zack Polanski or Zarah Sultana.

I think it’s something that people who consider themselves as feminists should ponder quite deeply, tbh.

So people only protested for PA in defiance of it being proscribed.

But the government should not have proscribed it, because they didn't consider the freedom of speech of the people who hadnt protested yet.

Makes sense.

I know that. And I also don’t think they are supporting terrorism. I hope that all these cases are dropped. Nobody is fighting for “the right to break a back” that is a criminal matter for the courts (and actually no criminal responsibility was found in that case I believe.) they were highlighting that the Palestinian action shouldn’t have been proscribed a terrorist group.

But you are happy for them to be taken court because you don’t agree with them essentially.

Sex and colour were not brought up as part of the defence because they weren’t relevant in this case.

PA didnt go out to attack women. If that was the case it would have come up. There’s a reason barristers and lawyers deal with these cases and not members of the public or mumsnet.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/israelopt-un-experts-appalled-reported-human-rights-violations-against

OHCHR

Latest Media Center
Press releases Special Procedures
Israel/oPt: UN experts appalled by reported human rights violations against Palestinian women and girls
19 February 2024

Your second paragraph isn’t the reason the U.K. Govn has been found incorrect in proscribing PA as a terrorist organisation.

Reasons are given upthread though.

The government shouldn't have proscribed it because it didn't meet their own guidelines on proscription. Surely nobody here agrees with the proscription of groups that don't meet the guidelines for proscription. It's a gross overstep on behalf of the government, why would anyone support their government acting unlawfully? The court said that the government had interfered with the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of assembly. Questions need to be asked as to why they made the decision to ignore their own guidelines, abuse their power and impede peoples right to free speech in this manner.

You really need to spend more time on the feminism section if you think that this case of a man bludgeoning a woman on camera with a sledgehammer and having his crime defended, minimised or just plain ignored shouldn’t be examined against a wider backdrop of low conviction rates for violence against women where these crimes are regularly dismissed and minimised.

”oh he didn’t hit her with a sledgehammer because she was a woman” - dear god.

Well yes actually. You have the essence of the ruling. Proscribing a group as terrorist restricts rights that would normally be protected- like peaceful protest for example. So it’s a very high bar to label a group as terrorists. And PA hadn’t done anything that couldn’t be dealt with using criminal law

And in this instance the court has ruled that the threat posed by the group means the label of terrorist group was disproportionate. And that it prevents lawful political expression and peaceful protest.

How do you know they're zionists? And if they are, how is that relevant?

It also states 'apparently'

The persons sex had Nothing to do with it….
if is in fact very dangerous to use it as a form of defence every single time a woman is injured. It’s utter nonsense in this case.

If you want to spot me on the feminism threads i’m one of the Professors
if you are ever there you’ll know why.

Well you've just lowered my opinion of that section then.

If you think that there's an epidemic of violence against women but we should just dismiss cases where we don't think the person deliberately targeted a woman as 'not counting', then yeah, you can dismiss quite a lot, can't you?

Fascinating to see how people who would consider violence against women a problem in general try desperately to not look at this case where violence against a woman has been dismissed and not treated seriously at all as different to all the others where this happens.

Because it doesn't look that different at all.

There seems to be a real cognitive dissonance in being so appalled by the actions of Palestine Action while overlooking the violence being committed by Israel against tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children.