2 women charged over 'breaching arms factory' released on bail
The 42-year-old woman was also charged under the Road Traffic Act. This too was "aggravated by reason of having a terrorist connection", the charges stated.
READ MORE: Banning Palestine Action an 'abuse of power', High Court told
The third woman arrested in connection with the incident was charged with malicious mischief, and her application for bail continues into Tuesday. She will appear at Edinburgh Sheriff Court then.
The incident at Leonardo took place earlier this month.
The group Shut Down Leonardo claimed it was making components for F-35 fighter jets but the defence company says it does not directly supply equipment to Israel.
READ MORE: Three men arrested under Terrorism Act after national Palestine demo in Edinburgh
Protesters gathered outside [[Edinburgh]] Sheriff Court, where the three women appeared on Monday. One held a sign saying: '20,000 children killed! Labour's action helps Israel murder them'.
Banners were also displayed for the pressure group Campaign Against Arms Trade and people waved Palestinian flags outside the court in Chambers Street in the capital.
Leonardo produces weapons for the Israeli military including guns used in the maritime blockade of Gaza and its wholly-owned subsidiary RADA Electronic Industries makes software which supports the country's 'Iron Fist' system which provided cover for tanks used in the ground invasion and levelling of [[Gaza]], according to the Who Profits Research Centre.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
I went out to challenge the law used to ban Palestine Action. Would I be arrested too?
I packed a toothbrush, books and a notepad in a small rucksack, took my laptop from the house and hid it, gave my phone to a friend to look after and put a 'bust card' (lawyers' details and legal advice) in my back pocket. I wasn't certain I would be arrested, but I wanted to be ready. Then I stepped, with other, much braver people into a legal labyrinth. So broad are sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and so madly oppressive is the government's order applying it to the proscribed protest group Palestine Action that it is difficult, when contesting it, to tell which side of the law you might be on, and what the response of the authorities might be. When people who oppose all forms of violence, who are trying to stop war and terrorism, are arrested on terrorism charges, nothing makes sense any more. In some places, the police have gone berserk. South Wales police, for example, arrested, among others, two women of 75 and 80 who were sitting peacefully in Cardiff, holding signs the officers alleged were supportive of Palestine Action. They used the extended detention powers the act permits, denied one of them essential medicines, broke open the doors of their homes, seized not only electronic devices but also books about Palestine and a Palestinian flag and appeared to test the food in their kitchens for radiation. Obviously, if someone has been arrested under the Terrorism Act they must be planning an atrocity, perhaps cooking up a dirty bomb (doubtless a vegan one, to boot). West Yorkshire police arrested a man in Leeds for holding a cartoon from Private Eye satirising the government's ban. Armed police in Kent threatened to arrest a woman for holding a Palestinian flag, claiming that this, too, contravened the Terrorism Act. An 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.' At least he got the dictated bit right. Other forces seem to have decided they had better things to do. Or maybe, just maybe, they've determined that our freedom of expression, enshrined in the Human Rights Act, overrides the ban on free expression applied through the Terrorism Act. The two are in direct conflict, leaving the police as confused as we are. On such judgments the future course of your life might hang: you can receive a 14-year sentence for expressing 'an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation', if you are 'reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support' the group. Where the boundaries of this remarkably vague law lie is anyone's guess. Our local force, Devon and Cornwall, arrested eight people in Truro for holding signs they suspected to be supportive of Palestine Action. So when we informed the deputy chief constable and our local police station that we were planning to stage a similar protest, we had reason to expect arrests. It might sound crazy to invite the police to your protest when the stakes are so high, but there is a long tradition of such accountable actions. Protest is effective when other people can see you mean it: that you are prepared to stand for your principles – all the way to prison, if necessary. The most powerful response to an oppressive and unjust law, which limits freedom of speech, is to challenge it, openly and without fear. Around the country, many brave people have done so. Some belong to a remarkable breed of older dissidents. The woman I sat beside while we held our signs in the marketplace is an 80-year-old retired nurse called Mary Light. She is a gentle soul with a steely determination to see good done that puts me to shame. Rather than enjoying an easy retirement, she has been arrested 11 times for environmental and Palestinian causes. She has stepped up to oppose genocide while the UK government's contribution to international law consists of approving the sale of lethal weapons to Israel and fighting in court for this sale to continue. All while issuing meaningless homilies about maybe not using those weapons to kill quite so many unarmed civilians, if you would be ever so kind? My own placard sought to test the free speech implications of the law. It stated 'Palestine Action are protestors, not terrorists'. As I see it, this is simply an expression of opinion: a critique of an illiberal and draconian order. How the police and courts might see it is another matter. One person's legitimate expression of opinion can, it now seems, be another person's support for terrorism. Similar opinions have been expressed by the UN human rights commissioner, Volker Türk, and by MPs in parliament. In fact, when she was in opposition, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, author of the ban on Palestine Action, chastised the Tories for doing what she has now done. She told them, 'the government are extending powers that we would normally make available just for serious violence and terrorism to peaceful protest'. She argued that the Tories' proposed legislation did not respect 'historic freedoms to protest'. Could we be arrested for making the same point? Two police officers arrived, loitered without intent, then dispersed before causing a public nuisance. I remain free, but aware that next time the outcome might be different. People calling for peace risk arrest and prosecution under the Terrorism Act, while the state terrorists murdering civilians every day are protected from our free speech. Misquoting Voltaire, people have often noted that 'those who believe absurdities commit atrocities'. But it is also true that those who facilitate atrocities become absurd. You do not need to support Palestine Action to note that they were seeking to uphold international law by trying to stop weapons from being supplied to a state committing genocide. Some were acquitted on this basis. Why has the UK government decreed they are terrorists? Perhaps because, by supplying weapons, it is complicit in that genocide. If you can turn the moral dial 180 degrees, maybe you can keep believing you are the good guys. The order the police are struggling to interpret is as ridiculous as it is oppressive. Oppression and absurdity are never far apart. George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist On Tuesday 16 September, join George Monbiot, Mikaela Loach and other special guests at the Guardian's climate assembly, live at the Barbican in London and livestreamed globally. Book tickets here or at
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
UCLA agrees to $6.5m settlement with Jewish students over pro-Palestinian protests
The University of California, Los Angeles, will pay nearly $6.5m to settle a lawsuit by Jewish students and a professor who said the university allowed antisemitic discrimination to take place on campus during last year's pro-Palestinian protests. The lawsuit alleged that with the 'knowledge and acquiescence' of university officials, protesters prevented Jewish students from accessing parts of campus, and made antisemitic threats. Under the settlement agreement announced on Tuesday, the university admitted it had 'fallen short' and agreed to pay $2.33m to eight groups that support UCLA's Jewish community, $320,000 to a campus initiative to fight antisemitism, and $50,000 to each plaintiff. 'We are pleased with the terms of today's settlement. The injunction and other terms UCLA has agreed to demonstrate real progress in the fight against antisemitism,' the parties said in a joint statement provided by the University of California. On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced the US Department of Justice's civil rights division found UCLA violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students'. 'UCLA failed to take timely and appropriate action in response to credible claims of harm and hostility on its campus,' said Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the justice department's civil rights division. The university has said that it is committed to campus safety and will continue to implement recommendations. UCLA was the site of massive protests last year amid a wave of campus demonstrations nationwide in response to the war in Gaza, in which Israeli forces have killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, which experts say is probably an undercount. The protests at UCLA attracted national attention, particularly after counter-protesters staged a violent attack on pro-Palestinian demonstrators. UCLA also faces a lawsuit from more than 30 pro-Palestinian protesters who say the university was negligent during the 'brutal mob assault' on the encampment and that officials did not intervene. 'This was four-plus hours of unmitigated violence while UCLA private security stood sometimes feet away and did nothing to protect the faculty, students and community members protesting genocide,' Thomas Harvey, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said earlier this year. The lawsuit that was settled this week was filed last year. This spring the Department of Justice announced it would investigate the University of California system for possible antisemitic discrimination and violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The university said it had taken 'substantive action' to combat antisemitism, including publicizing information about campus bans on encampments, opposing calls to boycott Israel and publishing a systemwide anti-discrimination policy. 'Antisemitism, harassment and other forms of intimidation are antithetical to our values and have no place at the University of California. We have been clear about where we have fallen short, and we are committed to doing better moving forward,' said Janet Reilly, the UC board of regents chair. 'Today's settlement reflects a critically important goal that we share with the plaintiffs: to foster a safe, secure and inclusive environment for all members of our community and ensure that there is no room for antisemitism anywhere.'
Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
Decision due on whether Palestine Action legal challenge can go ahead
Huda Ammori has made a bid to challenge Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws, announced after the group claimed responsibility for action in which two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Earlier this month, lawyers for Ms Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring a High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. Mr Justice Chamberlain will give his decision on whether the legal action can proceed on Wednesday. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'. Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' The Home Office is defending the legal action. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. He said: 'There is no credible basis on which it can be asserted that the purpose of this activity is not designed to influence the Government, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.' Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. The bid for a full High Court challenge comes after Ms Ammori failed in a previous bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, and the Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge over that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5.
