Five Palestine Action activists face being sentenced as terrorists after they sprayed red paint and cracked windows at a branch of Barclays bank to protest the company’s links to an Israeli weapons manufacturer.
So splitting the legal hairs here is at best irrelevant. We live in a society not a courtroom. The government has slapped The Big Scary Word on a thing it shouldn’t have.
I think it is important to to know what’s happening and not just repeat narrative coming from one side. People argued with me that “terrorist connection” means people are being convicted of additional crimes without the knowledge of a jury. Now you’re claiming the government is calling them terrorists while the “terrorist organization” proscription for Palestine Action was upheld by Court of Appeals. Palestine Action is using the threat of serious damage to property to intimidate people and advance ideological cause. They are publishing a "target map: https://targetmap.org/map. This is pretty much the definition of a terrorist organization according to UK laws.
We all would like UK government to sanction Israel but few governments in the world are willing to do that. Groups like Palestine Action try to change the status quo by committing crimes.I don’t think terrorist organization proscription is an overreach by the government here. I think that instead of being intimidated by it we should admit that yes, in this case, we do support the terrorist.
That’s a circular definition: the Labour government passed laws that defined Palestine Action as terrorists so therefore they are terrorist because the courts said they fit the description of the laws.
The other thing that you seem to have forfeited is a sense of proportionality. So, if you want to go around declaring yourself …a “terrorist sympathizer”, don’t let me stop you. I’ll keep on insisting that Palestine Action should have never been proscribed in the first place. All of the craziness follows from that first moment of Labour stupidity and overreach.
Ok, that’s fair. For me the definition used for the proscription doesn’t sound like something tailor made to fit Palestine Action nor does it look like a tool for squashing dissidents. I would say that is a group of people operated covertly to intimidate businesses supporting Palestine (for example damaging businesses providing relief to Palestine and hosting a map with targets, encouraging people to do the same) I wouldn’t hesitate to call that terrorism. I think it’s fine if you’re worried about being called a “terrorist sympathizer”. I don’t really mind that. Palestine Action is committing crimes to achieve their goals and I’m not going to pretend they don’t.
You might want to read the judgement then, because Johnson has a very different understanding - he very specifically names the Suffragettes as not being terrorists, despite their use of public and personal bombings and arson attacks to intimidate and influence policy. The law is not being applied equally, it is being used as a bludgeon against those who oppose genocide.
I don’t have that much time so I read the justification for terrorist connection aggravating factor and it’s exactly what I said here. I don’t see anything about Suffragettes in there. Can you point me to the part that talks about it?
Sorry, rereading I was completely unclear about which case I was refering to, and got my conflicts of interest mixed up - I meant the proscription judgement (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721?query=AMMORI&court=ewca%2Fciv) and Johnson wasn’t on this panel, his judgement is just based on it. The Suffragettes actions are specifically brought up as “civil disobedience” rather than “direct action”, which is a distinction the proscription kinda hinges on.
I think it is important to to know what’s happening and not just repeat narrative coming from one side. People argued with me that “terrorist connection” means people are being convicted of additional crimes without the knowledge of a jury. Now you’re claiming the government is calling them terrorists while the “terrorist organization” proscription for Palestine Action was upheld by Court of Appeals. Palestine Action is using the threat of serious damage to property to intimidate people and advance ideological cause. They are publishing a "target map: https://targetmap.org/map. This is pretty much the definition of a terrorist organization according to UK laws.
We all would like UK government to sanction Israel but few governments in the world are willing to do that. Groups like Palestine Action try to change the status quo by committing crimes.I don’t think terrorist organization proscription is an overreach by the government here. I think that instead of being intimidated by it we should admit that yes, in this case, we do support the terrorist.
That’s a circular definition: the Labour government passed laws that defined Palestine Action as terrorists so therefore they are terrorist because the courts said they fit the description of the laws.
The other thing that you seem to have forfeited is a sense of proportionality. So, if you want to go around declaring yourself …a “terrorist sympathizer”, don’t let me stop you. I’ll keep on insisting that Palestine Action should have never been proscribed in the first place. All of the craziness follows from that first moment of Labour stupidity and overreach.
Ok, that’s fair. For me the definition used for the proscription doesn’t sound like something tailor made to fit Palestine Action nor does it look like a tool for squashing dissidents. I would say that is a group of people operated covertly to intimidate businesses supporting Palestine (for example damaging businesses providing relief to Palestine and hosting a map with targets, encouraging people to do the same) I wouldn’t hesitate to call that terrorism. I think it’s fine if you’re worried about being called a “terrorist sympathizer”. I don’t really mind that. Palestine Action is committing crimes to achieve their goals and I’m not going to pretend they don’t.
You might want to read the judgement then, because Johnson has a very different understanding - he very specifically names the Suffragettes as not being terrorists, despite their use of public and personal bombings and arson attacks to intimidate and influence policy. The law is not being applied equally, it is being used as a bludgeon against those who oppose genocide.
I did read it:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/R-v-Charlotte-Head-and-others-sentencing-remarks.pdf
I don’t have that much time so I read the justification for terrorist connection aggravating factor and it’s exactly what I said here. I don’t see anything about Suffragettes in there. Can you point me to the part that talks about it?
Sorry, rereading I was completely unclear about which case I was refering to, and got my conflicts of interest mixed up - I meant the proscription judgement (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721?query=AMMORI&court=ewca%2Fciv) and Johnson wasn’t on this panel, his judgement is just based on it. The Suffragettes actions are specifically brought up as “civil disobedience” rather than “direct action”, which is a distinction the proscription kinda hinges on.