Former Greens candidate may lose sight after being arrested in Sydney protest at alleged Israel technology supplier
A former Greens candidate has been injured after allegedly resisting police arrest while picketing a business in Sydney's west, with friends and family warned she may lose sight in her right eye.
The protest, which attracted between 50-60 people, sought to stop pedestrian access to a business that was accused by protesters of 'supplying electroplating and surface coating services for a variety of applications including aerospace and defence technology' to Israel.
The Greens allege the company is reportedly 'involved in providing plating services for various parts used in F-35 jets' used by the Israeli military.
According to police, officers issued a move-on direction to the protesters around 5:30am on Friday morning.
The force alleged the protest was 'unauthorised', as those involved had not given advanced noticed nor submitted a form that protected them from being charged under anti-protest laws.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Hannah Thomas, who ran against Anthony Albanese in the Sydney electorate of Grayndler, allegedly declined to comply with the order and was forcibly removed and arrested.
Police said Thomas, 35, sustained facial injuries during the arrest and was taken to Bankstown hospital for treatment.
Images of Thomas online show her right eye was badly swollen and bruised. It is not known how the injury was sustained.
'As police attempted to arrest the protesters who were not complying with the directions, a scuffle ensued between police and protesters, during which a police body worn camera was taken by an unknown protester,' the police statement continued.
New South Wales Greens MP Sue Higginson said the protest was peaceful and claimed Thomas was the 'victim of brutal excessive force by the police'.
'The last we heard, about an hour ago, was that Hannah was still in a state, the extent of her injuries were unclear,' Higginson said.
'The prognosis provided to family earlier was that they could not tell the extent of her injuries until there was a full examination because the swelling was too severe and that it was possible she may lose vision in that eye.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'That she may have sustained injuries to the bones of her face, but nothing has been confirmed at this point in time.'
One of those arrested, Zack Schofield, 26, alleged the force used by police was 'excessive' and 'will be put into question'. Schofield was charged with allegedly failing or refusing to comply with a move on direction.
Higginson said Thomas's friends and family were 'all deeply stressed and anxious about the injuries that she sustained.'
The Greens MP said all protests were lawful and that those 'reserving their right to engage in non-violent civil disobedience deserve to be treated fairly, respectfully and non-violently under the laws of NSW'.
'For the police to say this was an unauthorised protest is just a nonsense narrative,' Higginson said. 'All protests are lawful in terms of the gathering of people on public land.'
Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi said the police had displayed 'atrocious behaviour' and that she was 'shocked' by the arrests and injuries sustained.
All five people arrested were granted conditional bail to appear before Bankstown local court on 15 July.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Edinburgh Reporter
an hour ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Call to axe Sheriffhall Roundabout support beaten
A push to axe the council's support for a controversial upgrade to a congested city roundabout has been snuffed out by the city's transport boss. Plans to upgrade the busy Sheriffhall Roundabout, the only flat junction on the bypass, have been in the works since 2018, but work has not yet started on the project. At a committee meeting yesterday, the city's Green group made a bid to cut the council's support for the flyover, saying money could be better spent elsewhere. It was rebuffed by the city's transport leader, although he admitted building new infrastructure on the city bypass was not 'ultimately' the solution to increased traffic caused by population growth in the Lothians. While the bypass is Transport Scotland's responsibility, cutting the council's support would have sent a strong message of dissatisfaction with the project to Holyrood. Greens, both at the council and in the Scottish Parliament, have long opposed the flyover on the grounds that it could cause induced demand – the phenomenon by which adding more road infrastructure in an area can cause more people to start driving. They say that money should instead be spent on improving public transport links and building infrastructure to allow for more walking and cycling. Councillor Kayleigh Kinross-O'Neill, the Greens co-leader, said: 'Congestion is a human issue, no matter where and what it is, that unfortunately needs human-led behaviour change. 'We note the issues faced, and think we should be moving away from the conversation of the roads and staying on the path – no pun intended – of priortising walking, wheeling and cycling, and reducing car dependency. 'Totally appreciate that Sheriffhall is above all of us, and we're still awaiting the results of the public local inquiry. However we're all pretty tired of waiting, and we know there are better ways money could be spent across the region.' Cllr Kinross-O'Neill said some possible options could be putting money towards the trams, more park and rides and expanded bus lanes in the capital. She continued to say: 'We request that we withdraw the favour and support of the scheme, [or] any sort of waste of time road improvements that would cause congestion, not tackle it.' The exchange came as part of a debate over a motion by Conservative councillor Neil Cuthbert calling for action on congestion on the city bypass, as well as modelling on what future traffic could look like on the road. Edinburgh's Green group added their request to scrap support for the flyover as an amendment to the motion. Transport and Environment Committee convener Stephen Jenkinson moved no action on Cllr Cuthbert's motion, which also eliminated the Green amendment. He said: 'One of the main reasons that there are times where the bypass does get congested – and it does get congested, from time to time I am stuck on it – It's as much to do with population growth, not only in Edinburgh, but predominantly in East Lothian, which has increased the traffic on the bypass. 'So how do you tackle it? I don't think that building a flyover is ultimately the solution. What you have to do is actually do things to do what you can to remove the traffic, to get it back to norms. 'So public transport solutions, like tram, potentially bus rapid transport links to East Lothian and Midlothian, are the long term solutions in regards to giving the people using the bypass an alternative option.' The debate over the flyover comes amid wider questions over the future of the project. A need for it was identified 17 years ago, and in 2018 it was included in the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city region deal, which put £120 million towards the project. But it has lumbered along slowly through the planning process, with more than 2,700 objections to its construction leading to an inquiry. Though it was submitted in October of 2023, the Scottish Government is still reviewing the inquiry's report. Earlier this month, Transport Secretary Fiona Hyslop told MSPs that she is waiting on advice from senior Scottish Government officials on the next steps for the project. She added that she was unable to provide a timeline for when action would be taken. By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer used to stand up for the kinds of protesters he now labels terrorists
Two days before the missiles started raining down on Baghdad in March 2003, Josh Richards packed a mixture of petrol and washing-up liquid into his rucksack and headed off to RAF Fairford base in Gloucestershire. His plan was to set fire to the wheels of a B-52 USAF bomber to prevent it from joining in the imminent shock and awe. He was caught before he could act, but he was not the only person with the idea of mounting a last-ditch attempt to hinder a war which many considered illegal. A few days earlier, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling had cut their way into the same airbase and damaged a number of fuel tankers and bomb trailers. Another two men in their thirties, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, armed themselves with paint, nuts and bolts, with the intention of damaging the bombers' engines. Today, this group of five would be labelled terrorists. See the government's reaction last week when pro-Palestinian activists broke into RAF Brize Norton and – just like their earlier counterparts at Fairford – damaged two military planes with red paint. "A disgraceful act of vandalism," said the prime minister, Keir Starmer. Within days, home secretary Yvette Cooper was on her feet in the House of Commons announcing that the group involved, Palestine Action, would be added to the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. If you dare donate so much as a fiver to it in future, you will be committing a crime. Twenty-odd years ago, we lived in a kinder, gentler age. Society was not so harsh in their judgements about the group which became known as the Fairford Five. The protestors lawyered up and their briefs decided on an original defence, arguing that their actions were justified, morally and legally, because they were aimed at preventing a greater evil – ie. the war in Iraq and its probable consequences. They were, in short, willing to commit crimes in order to prevent greater crimes. Among the barristers who came up with this intriguing defence was a rising star of the human rights bar, Keir Starmer QC. He argued the case on behalf of Josh Richards, first at the Court of Appeal in June 2004 and then again before the House of Lords in March 2006. The presiding judge, Lord Bingham, went out of his way to praise the "erudition" involved. The appeal did not totally succeed, but in his judgment Lord Hoffmann articulated a humane view of how, in the UK, he believed we have traditionally regarded such acts of protest. "Civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country," he wrote (at paragraph 89). "People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometimes vindicated by history. The suffragettes are an example which comes immediately to mind. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind." Hoffman outlined the "conventions" he thought should govern such acts of civil disobedience in his "civilised community". The law-breakers had to behave with a sense of proportion and avoid excessive damage. The law-enforcers, on the other hand, should "behave with restraint [and] … take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account". I imagine Mr Starmer QC read those words with some pleasure at the time: they have been quoted many times in courts over the years by his learned friends in defending clients acting on conscientious grounds. But now, at the behest of his government, such people are to be defined as terrorists. Forget trying to understand their conscientious motives. Lock them up and ban them. What happened? Let's try some hypotheses. The first possible explanation is that Starmer in 2004 was just operating on the "cab rank" principle. He didn't actually believe all that stuff he argued in the posh courts: he was just making the best case he could. But one former Doughty Street Chambers colleague told me Starmer "totally" believed in the right to protest. Some argue he is simply a massive hypocrite. He couldn't care less that there's a yawning gulf between what he then argued and what he now advocates. Or maybe he has just changed his mind? Perhaps he had some sympathy with the Fairford cause (Iraq) and less for the Brize Norton protests (Palestine)? Perhaps he still holds the same views he expressed 20 years ago, but has been advised it would be politically unwise to voice them. Reform is storming ahead in the polls and is demanding tough action. Now's not the time to out yourself as a bleeding-heart liberal. So you can show your toughness by outlawing the very sort of people you once defended. And, while you're about it, tell Glastonbury to drop another "terrorist" – in this case, the Irish language rap group Kneecap. Or maybe he believes in nothing? That, after all, is what a significant slew of even his own backbenchers are coming to assume. Twenty years ago, the public took a more forgiving view of protestors. Juries initially failed to agree on a verdict on charges against four of the Fairford defendants. Olditch and Pritchard were subsequently cleared of all charges after two trials. Josh Richards was also tried twice after admitting he wanted to set fire to a B-52 bomber. Twice, he walked free. Only Margaret Jones and Paul Milling were found guilty – at the second attempt – and were treated relatively leniently. Milling was given a conditional discharge and a £250 fine. Dr Jones was given a five-month curfew order. So perhaps this explains what's going on in Starmer's mind. He, of all people, knows that juries are quite likely to side with conscientious protestors on an issue like Gaza. So it is cleaner simply to outlaw protest groups from the start. For someone who believes in the rule of law, it's a clever way of getting round the rule of law. "Yes, they should stand trial. Yes, they've committed criminal damage," Baroness Helena Kennedy, a fellow civil rights lawyer told me. "But to label them terrorists seems extraordinary to me. It's going down the old Trump road, and I don't like it at all. There's a sense in which you have a US government which has no respect for the rule of law and there's now a kind of poison seeping into our own legal aquifer." As I write, another four protestors have been arrested by counter-terror police at Brize Norton. You can't help wondering whether the concept of terrorism itself is being somewhat watered down by the Starmer government. And you can't help wonder at the philosophical somersaults taking place in Starmer's mind as he stands everything he argued for 20 years ago on its head.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Rising poverty in conflict zones ‘causes a billion people to go hungry'
Extreme poverty is accelerating in 39 countries affected by war and conflict, leaving more than a billion people to go hungry, according to the World Bank. Civil wars and confrontations between nations, mostly in Africa, have set back economic growth and reduced the incomes of more than a billion people, 'driving up extreme poverty faster than anywhere else', the Washington-based body said. Underscoring the breadth of conflicts beyond the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza wars, it said the 39 developing economies classified as being in fragile and conflict-affected situations are plagued by instability and weak institutions, 'hindering their ability to attain the robust, sustained economic growth needed for development'. In its first assessment of conflict zones since the Covid-19 pandemic began in 2020, the World Bank urged western governments to step up support for war-torn countries to end the conflicts and rebuild vital institutions. Since 2020, the level of national income per head of population has shrunk by an average of 1.8% a year in the affected countries, while it has expanded by 2.9% in other developing economies, the report found. The World Bank, which lends to poor nations to promote stable economic growth, said acute hunger was increasing and development goals set by the United Nations were now 'further out of reach'. 'This year, 421 million people are struggling on less than $3 a day in economies afflicted by conflict or instability – more than in the rest of the world combined,' the report said. 'That number is projected to rise to 435 million, or nearly 60% of the world's extreme poor, by 2030.' The number of deaths in wars and conflicts across the world was stable before the 2008 banking crisis, which forced many developing countries to cut back welfare and education programmes to pay for rising debt payments. The report said the average number of such fatalities was about 50,000 between 2000 and 2004 and even lower between 2005 and 2008, but then there was an increase to more than 150,000 in 2014. Since the pandemic, the number of deaths in conflict has averaged 200,000, hitting more than 300,000 in 2022. 'For the last three years, the world's attention has been on the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, and this focus has now intensified,' said Indermit Gill, the World Bank Group's chief economist. 'Yet more than 70% of people suffering from conflict and instability are Africans. Untreated, these conditions become chronic. Half of the countries facing conflict or instability today have been in such conditions for 15 years or more. Misery on this scale is inevitably contagious.' He said of the 39 economies currently classified as facing conflict or instability, 21 are in active conflict. Several major donors to investment programmes across the developing world have reduced their funding in recent years, including the UK and the US. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Some philanthropic organisations, including the Bill Gates Foundation, have said they cannot increase funding to fill gaps left by governments, leaving many countries to scramble for funds to pay loan interest payments. According to the report, the extreme-poverty rate has fallen to 6% on average across all developing world countries. However, in economies facing conflict or instability the rate is nearly 40%. The 39 countries have a rate of national income per head of $1,500 a year, 'which has barely budged since 2010 – even as GDP per capita has more than doubled to an average of $6,900 in other developing economies,' the report said. Joining the army of local militia can also be an attractive option for young men and women. In 2022, the latest year for which such data was available, more than 270 million people were of working age in these economies, yet less than half were employed. 'The global community must pay greater attention to the plight of these economies,' said M Ayhan Kose, the World Bank Group's deputy chief economist. 'Jumpstarting growth and development here will not be easy, but it can be done – and it has been done before. With targeted policies and stronger international support, policymakers can prevent conflict, strengthen governance, accelerate growth, and create jobs.'
