I was arrested at the Palestine Action ban protest – and it all still seems surreal
Section 13 relates to any public display indicating 'that one is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation' – in this case, Palestine Action.
Our alleged crime is that we were directly supporting Palestine Action by holding up a sign calling for an end to the genocide in Gaza and the reversal of home secretary Yvette Cooper's dangerous decision to proscribe it as a terrorist organisation.
So I sat there, mostly in silence, for two and a half hours before being arrested. I spent a lot of time looking around at all those holding identical signs ('I oppose genocide: I support Palestine Action'), and on one occasion burst out laughing at the absurd idea that these calm, predominantly old or middle-aged, middle-class citizens are now seen by our government as linked to or even the equivalent of members of al-Qaeda, the IRA, Boko Haram or the Wagner Group.
One of the reasons why Mr Justice Chamberlain, sitting in the High Court on July 30, expedited the appeal by Palestine Action against its proscription (now to be heard in November) was that the home secretary failed to consult with any individual or organisation other than those who had been pressing for years for Palestine Action to be proscribed. Any sensible, non-partisan person could have told Yvette Cooper she was going to end up looking like a bit of a chump – and I bet you any money her civil servants did.
Even the government's Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre's assessment acknowledged that 'Palestine Action does not advocate for violence against persons' – the very essence of terrorism.
Weirdly, what I was most upset by was not the behaviour of the police, which I personally – though others had a different experience – found to be uniformly courteous and attentive, but the behaviour of all the no doubt well-meaning non-sitters, screaming insults at the police as they carried out their duties in removing us from Parliament Square. 'Shame on you, shame on you!' Shame on whom, I found myself asking?
Shame, primarily, on our government. I'm in no doubt whatsoever that this government will be found, in due course, to have been complicit in the genocide being carried out in Gaza today – not just through continuing arms sales to Israel, but in its reckless refusal to act on stated duties to prevent genocide under international law.
The vast majority of people here in the UK now see that genocide for what it really is. Seven days ago, a Jordanian flight to air-drop aid over Gaza revealed the full extent of the devastation wrought by Israel's assault on Gaza over the last two years. Just 48 hours after that, the commemoration of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima 80 years ago reminded us of all of those terrible scenes. It was hard to tell the difference.
Yet, Cooper has doubled down on her determination to persuade us all that Palestine Action is a 'violent organisation.... causing significant injury to an individual'. Apparently, she can't reveal the evidence that lies behind that assertion because of national security.
Let's be clear: it is not our national security that is at stake in this moment; it is the integrity of our ministers.
Palestine Action has proved to be the most effective organisation in laying bare the extent of the UK government's complicity in the genocide in Gaza, through its direct action campaigning against some of the manufacturers of the weapons that are killing Palestinians day after bloody day.
Has property been damaged in the actions? Yes, it has. Has that damage been costly to those involved? Yes, it has.
That does not make Palestine Action a terrorist organisation, though. The government has so many other ways of prosecuting Palestine Action for what it has been doing, including criminal damage which already carries heavy penalties. But that would not have silenced Palestine Action.
Opposing genocide is not terrorism. That's what brought all 532 of us to Parliament Square on Saturday, and I believe will now bring the whole country together.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
4 minutes ago
- Times
Free speech blow as national library bans book opposing gender self-ID
Scotland's national library banned a book about feminists' fight against Nicola Sturgeon's gender self-ID law after staff complained its contents were 'hate speech' comparable to racism. The National Library of Scotland (NLS) has been accused of a 'shameful' capitulation to censorship after it emerged that The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht, a collection of essays by gender-critical women, had been cut from a major exhibition celebrating the institution's centenary. Members of the public had been asked by the library, which promotes itself as a national forum for 'ideas, debate and discussion', to nominate books which had shaped their lives for inclusion in a ten-month public display intended as a 'love letter' to the power of reading. However, despite The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht receiving double the number of nominations necessary to guarantee inclusion in the Dear Library public display, Amina Shah, Scotland's national librarian and the NLS chief executive, decided not to include the book after a staff backlash.
Daily Mail
4 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Kate Forbes may be banned from arts venue because of her views on trans issues
A venue at the Edinburgh Fringe festival has triggered a freedom of speech row after indicating that Kate Forbes won't be allowed back because of her views on trans issues. Summerhall Arts issued an apology to other performers for the 'oversight' of allowing the Deputy First Minister, who has spoken up against gender reforms and backs single-sex spaces for biological women, being interviewed onstage last week. Several of the performances at the venue during this year's Fringe run feature gay or transgender themes, and some of the artists set up a 'safe room' because they were said to have been 'terrified' while 5ft 2in Ms Forbes was in the building. Now bosses at the venue have indicated that they will develop 'robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that would prevent this oversight in our bookings process happening again'. Women's rights campaigners claimed that banning critics of self-ID would be against the law. It comes after the Stand comedy club was forced to reinstate a show featuring Joanna Cherry at the Fringe two years ago after she threatened legal action for discrimination when the venue initially planned to cancel the event because of her views on trans issues. Marion Calder, a director at For Women Scotland, said any refusal to allow Ms Forbes and others who share her views to appear at the venue would be 'against the law' for the same reasons as in the battle between Ms Cherry and the Stand two years ago. She said: 'They clearly haven't taken legal opinion on this. Why on earth would members of staff and other performers be scared of a young woman having 'dangerous' thoughts? 'Summerhall is renowned as being one of the largest Fringe venues: what is this saying about the Edinburgh Fringe if free speech doesn't exist and this appearance is intolerable? And who are these arbiters who think some people are not allowed to have thoughts?' She also highlighted that Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, who has indicated that his party would no longer support gender reform legislation, was among the other speakers with no similar backlash. Ms Calder said: 'Why were they not up in arms about Anas? Why burn the witch? At a time when people are crying out for edgy and different Summerhall is doing the opposite of what it should be doing. 'People are fed up of the same woke shows that are appearing.' Ms Forbes had appeared at Summerhall on August 7 as part of the Herald's Unspun Live at the Fringe series of political interviews. Artists were said to have been so 'terrified' that they set up a 'safe room' while she was at the venue, while bosses at the venue issued an apology. A source at Sumerhall Arts, which was awarded £608,302 of public cash from Scottish Government quango Creative Scotland in January, said: 'This event was booked as a series of longform interviews prior to the guest list being confirmed. 'Summerhall Arts' primary concern is the safety and wellbeing of the artists and performers we work with, and going forward we will be developing robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that would prevent this oversight in our bookings process happening again. 'Summerhall Arts issued a communication to all artists making them aware of the event.' Scottish Conservative equalities spokesman Tess White said: 'This is an outrageous and unacceptable statement from a venue that is clearly detached from reality. 'Not only is this a scandalous attempt to curtail free speech, it is seemingly oblivious to the Supreme Court ruling which fully vindicated in law those whom Summerhall wishes to silence. 'As for its concern for 'the safety and wellbeing' of artists, this clearly doesn't extend to female artists. 'While Kate Forbes has been disgracefully treated, she might reflect that it's the SNP which imposed this toxic gender ideology across Scottish public life, and it's her current party leader who refuses to disown it.' During the interview, presenter Andrew Learmonth highlighted that there were people in the building 'who didn't want this show to go ahead', complained to management and wanted it to be cancelled because they 'didn't like what they think of your views, particularly around gender, sex and trans issues'. Ms Forbes said: 'These issues have been well documented and can I just say how brilliant it is for us to have freedom of speech in this country.' She said there needs to be spaces where people can have discussion and debate, and added: 'My approach is to respect the fact and to appreciate the fact that a lot of people disagree with me. 'I think it is a reflection on a healthy democracy that people both agree with me and disagree with me. 'I am not anti any human being. I am taught to love my neighbour as myself, which is to give them greater respect, greater honour and greater appreciation than I would expect myself.' In 2023, The Stand announced it had cancelled Ms Cherry's appearance because staff were not comfortable with her views on transgender issues. The appearance eventually went ahead after the threat of legal action, with the venue saying it took legal advice and accepted the decision was 'unfair and constituted unlawful discrimination against Ms Cherry'. Responding to the freedom of speech row, Ms Forbes said: 'As I stated at the event, I fervently believe in freedom of speech. Any effort to 'cancel' people, especially politicians, undermines democracy. 'Many people attended the Herald event and it is important that we could freely discuss and debate matters in a respectful manner. 'I respect and acknowledge the fact that in a liberal democracy there are people who will agree with me and others who will disagree with me. 'That is all the more reason to create events where the audience and journalists can question politicians openly, as the Herald did.'
Telegraph
4 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘Cut their throats' Labour councillor ‘prone to emotional arousal'
A suspended Labour councillor who said far-Right activists' throats should be cut might be prone to 'reactive speech' because of his 'probable ADHD', a court heard. Snaresbrook Crown Court was told that Ricky Jones, 58, suffered from 'emotional arousal' which could 'override deliberate decision-making'. A video of Mr Jones speaking into a microphone at a demonstration held by Stand Up To Racism on Aug 7 last year went viral on social media. It showed Mr Jones – at the time a councillor for Dartford, Kent – referring to the rioters and protesters who took to the streets after the Southport murders. Drawing his finger across his throat, he said: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' Mr Jones, who was also a full-time official for the Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA) union at the time, does not dispute what he said but denies one charge of encouraging violent disorder. As part of a set of facts agreed by the prosecution and the defence, the jury was told that experts for both sides had confirmed that Mr Jones 'suffers from a number of neurodivergent challenges'. Issues identified by the experts included 'impulsivity (probable ADHD), increasing the likelihood of reactive speech rather than intentional incitement'. The experts said testing had established that Mr Jones suffered from 'impaired verbal comprehension potentially leading to misunderstanding the impact of his words' and 'slower cognitive processing, meaning he may not have evaluated the situation in real time'. They said Mr Jones suffered from 'emotional arousal, which can override deliberate decision-making'. Giving evidence in court, Mr Jones told the jury he suffered from dyslexia, dyscalculia – which impairs the ability to work with numbers – and Irlen syndrome, which means he has difficulties when reading black text on white paper over long periods of time. He told the jury his daughters had previously suggested he might have ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) but he 'didn't really want another label'. Hossein Zahir KC, his defence barrister, asked Mr Jones: 'What is the difference between you and someone you might describe as neurotypical?' Mr Jones replied: 'If I get emotional and distracted I come out with things I don't always mean.' The father of four was asked about racism in Hackney, east London, where he grew up as a mixed-race child. He said: 'Wherever you went you saw huge 'NF' graffiti and ... that meant National Front, who were a far-Right organisation at that stage. 'It [was] a bit like the situation today, in the sense of the Reform party. A lot of people are being taken in by the Reform party and believe what they say.' Mr Jones said his white grandmother, who raised him, was called a 'black man's whore' when he was a boy and she held his hand in public. Concealed razor blades A borough councillor since 2019, Mr Jones was suspended by the Labour Party the day after the alleged incident. At the time of his arrest, he told police in a prepared statement that his comments referred to individuals whom he understood to have stuck a National Front sticker on a train with razor blades concealed behind it. He added: 'I did not intend for my comments to be taken literally by anyone and I did not intend to encourage or incite anyone to commit violence against any other. 'I am, however, extremely sorry for making the comments which were made in the heat of the moment and I very much regret having done so.' He said he had not been invited to speak into the microphone at the Stand Up to Racism event 'until the last minute' and 'had not planned or thought about' what he was going to say in advance. Giving evidence on Tuesday, he said he was appalled by political violence, adding: 'I've always believed the best way to make people realise who you are and what you are is to do it peacefully.' Mr Jones, who said he was on the Left of the Labour Party, told jurors the riots had made him feel 'upset' and 'angry' and said he felt it was his 'duty' to attend counter-protests. The trial continues.
