SNP MPs should not have sat on their hands during vote on proscription
READ MORE: The 26 MPs who voted against proscribing Palestine Action – see the list
To be honest I fear the dead hand of John Swinney is behind this. It is his type of managerial politics that only annoys more people than actually standing up for a principle. No wonder the support for independence is breaking away from the stalling and falling support for the SNP. We are seeing 2003 happen all over again. One of the first things Swinney did was to repeat his failings last time as leader and spend more time and money promoting Labour politicians than the SNP's actual candidates or policies.
For more than 10 years the SNP haven't had a policy on independence, and they still claim we're closer than ever – absolute nonsense. The party is going nowhere with Swinney – the SNP needs a leader who actually wants independence and has a plan to achieve it.
The unintended outcome of this disastrous SNP position is that I will no longer contribute to any SNP election fund but will instead donate whatever the party would have received to help Palestine Action make a legal challenge to this attack on free speech.
Alex Beckett
Paisley
THE majority of MP's have no moral compass. They should have demanded, like Corbyn, a separate vote on each group. Now this fascist government can include any group it dislikes in with another clearly terrorist group, and force their supine MPs to vote in favour. Meanwhile, the IDF – which is clearly a terrorist organ of Israel, having murdered tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians, even killing those starving as they queue for food – isn't sanctioned for its terrorism, but a group that sprays paint is considered as bad as the Wagner Group.
Graham Hewitt
via thenational.scot
THE Haaretz newspaper published an article titled ''It's a Killing Field': IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot Deliberately at Unarmed Gazans Waiting for Humanitarian Aid'. Officers and soldiers were 'ordered to fire at unarmed crowds near food distribution sites in Gaza, even when no threat was present. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed, prompting the military prosecution to call for a review into possible war crimes.'
One soldier said that civilians are 'treated like a hostile force – no crowd-control measures, no tear gas, just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars.'
READ MORE: Former government lawyer to defy Palestine Action ban in Parliament Square protest
Since October 2023, IDF soldiers have shamelessly posted and bragged about their slaughter of Palestinians, even babies, on social media.
Then we have the immoral Keir Starmer calling for the criminal prosecution and de-platforming of musicians who have the moral courage to condemn this genocide. He still can't bring himself to utter the 'G''word.
Following the Glastonbury performances over the weekend by Kneecap and Bob Vylan, where the latter led the crowds in chants: 'Free, free Palestine' and 'Death, death to the IDF', Avon and Somerset police said they were assessing video evidence 'to determine whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation.'
Seriously? This is where we are. Someone insisted to me recently that what's happening in Gaza isn't a genocide but ethnic cleansing. I challenged him to explain the difference to me – he couldn't.
The UK is run by morally vacuous imbeciles. They are so beholden to the Zionist entity that they agree with the genocider-in-chief Netanyahu that an Israeli newspaper quoting IDF soldiers describing their own atrocities is antisemitic, 'designed to defame the IDF, the most moral military in the world'.
The criminals aren't the musicians who are condemning the Zionist entity's crimes but the Western 'leaders' giving it money, weapons and political cover. They belong in Dante's seventh circle of hell, a river of boiling blood and fire, reserved for those guilty of violence against humanity.
Leah Gunn Barrett
Edinburgh
I AM writing this on a day when we are looking down the double barrel of supposed democracies in the USA and UK pushing hundreds of thousands of their voters into poverty and making access to healthcare and care support evermore difficult.
At a time when the Chief Rabbi of England (Zionist) is claiming chanting 'Kill the IDF' is antisemitic while the IDF killing semites in the Middle East who are waiting for food hand-outs, is not.
READ MORE: BBC drops high risk live performances after Bob Vylan Glastonbury set
We have a Chancellor who has bought the austerity, capitalist rubbish about 'trickle-down' hook, line and sinker, especially where it relates to her personal funders' wishes and directions to protect their investments and profit margins.
In the meantime we, in Scotland, are left with a party for independence that have seen the polls constantly positive to Scottish independence for more than a year, who think 'a safe pair of hands' is the way to go rather than seeking political advantage at a time when Labour and the Tories are in disarray and the UK is falling to bits as a unitary state.
Its enough to make me tear my hair out, but as I have less and less of it these days maybe it's not the time, yet.
Peter Thomson
Kirkcudbright
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Palestine Action ban would be ‘authoritarian abuse' of power, High Court told
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, is asking the High Court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is set to come into force at midnight after being approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week, and would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The Home Office is opposing bids to delay the ban from becoming law, and the potential launch of a legal challenge against the decision. At a hearing on Friday, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, told the London court: 'This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists.' The barrister said that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'. Quoting Ms Ammori, the barrister continued that the group had 'never encouraged harm to any person at all' and that its goal 'is to put ourselves in the way of the military machine'. He continued: 'We ask you, in the first instance, to suspend until July 21 what we say is an ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power which is alien to the basic tradition of the common law and is contrary to the Human Rights Act.' The barrister later said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'. He added: 'The discretion to proscribe an organisation must be exercised with respect to the central concern of the Act, which plainly is not to simply proscribe any organisation which fits the definition.' Mr Husain later said that to proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary 'has got to believe that the organisation is concerned in terrorism'. 'If you get isolated conduct associated with Palestine Action that meets the statutory definition, that is not enough because you have got to look at the organisation as a whole,' he said. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. The barrister named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action. 'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?' 'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ghralaigh asked. Mr Justice Chamberlain previously said that if he decided to temporarily block the ban, he could do that with either an 'interim declaration' or by making an injunction 'requiring the Secretary of State to make an order'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action. The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Mr Watson said: 'At its heart, it is a challenge to the proscription of the organisation … POAC is the forum of first resort.' He continued: 'Even if the court does conclude that there is some residual scope for judicial review … then we respectfully submit that the court needs to look at the bespoke regime that Parliament has provided.' Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7 million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. He said: 'The process or assessment on the basis of which that proscription decision was made preceded that, in March.' Police said that the incident caused around £7 million worth of damage, with four people charged in connection with the incident. Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22, are accused of conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage. They were remanded into custody after appearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court and will appear at the Old Bailey on July 18. The hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain will conclude later on Friday, with the High Court judge expected to give his decision at the end of the hearing. A further hearing to decide whether Ms Ammori will be given the green light to challenge the decision to ban Palestine Action is expected to be heard later this month.
North Wales Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Gender critical campaigners demand action from government on toilet access
Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against which went to the Supreme Court, are threatening a lawsuit against Scottish ministers – with the latest letter demanding action by a deadline of next Wednesday. The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday. The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.' It notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities. The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'. A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling. The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling. 'This includes the establishment of a short life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation which may be impacted by the judgment. 'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government. 'This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.' The government has been approached for further comment.
Western Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Gender critical campaigners demand action from government on toilet access
Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against which went to the Supreme Court, are threatening a lawsuit against Scottish ministers – with the latest letter demanding action by a deadline of next Wednesday. The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. John Swinney has said he accepts the ruling (Jane Barlow/PA) The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday. The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.' It notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities. The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'. A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling. The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling. 'This includes the establishment of a short life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation which may be impacted by the judgment. 'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government. 'This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.' The government has been approached for further comment.
