As Britain’s Police and the Tory Government Declare Open War on the Right to Protest, Labour’s Stuffed Dummy Starmer Stays Silent
If you’ve been wondering why this blog has fallen silent for the past two weeks then wonder no more. In the early morning of Tuesday 9th March I was arrested together with 5 supporters of Palestine Action whilst driving a van to Elbit Systems Shenstone factory. We were intent on redecorating the premises of Elbit in the blood red colour of their victims. [See Activists from Palestine Action remanded in prison as police crackdown continues]
 |
| Oldbury Police Holding Centre |
We were taken to Oldbury
holding centre in Staffordshire and held for 27 hours before being brought
before magistrates in Birmingham and Wolverhampton. The company who built it, describes it as a 60-bed
suite ‘complete with en-suite rooms’
although there are other more accurate descriptions of a facility designed to
separate those it holds from each other and the outside world. Oldbury is a
purpose built exercise in sensory deprivation.
Once taken to Oldbury we
were separated from each other and given no access to the outside though news
of a demonstration outside was leaked to us. You have no newspapers, TV or any
reading material. Our watches were taken from us. The food consisted of cheap
packaged meals which must have cost at least 30p each.
It was not until Tuesday
afternoon that I was taken out of the cells to be interviewed by a member of
the West Midlands Police and a Metropolitan Policewoman. The Met woman asked
questions about the structure of Palestine Action and she was clearly from
Special Branch.
Clearly this is part of a
co-ordinated attempt by the Police to crack down on any action directed at the
operation of Israeli arms company Elbit.
At 2.30 a.m. I was charged
with going equipped to commit criminal damage. I had not been allowed a phone
call as is stipulated in the regulations and I asked why not. I was told that this was because my wife,
Fiona (from whom I was separated) had told them that she wanted nothing to do
with me. At the time I believed it and was taken aback to put it mildly.
It was only in Winson
Green, where I was remanded, that I was informed by prison staff that Fiona had
been ringing worried about whether I had access to my drugs. It was then that I
realised that I had been lied to as part of a campaign to demoralize me. I
intend to take legal action for personal injury as a result of this
demonstrable lie.
Remanded in Custody
We were all charged with
conspiracy to cause criminal damage and going equipped to cause criminal
damage. 4 of us were sent to Birmingham magistrates court and 2 to
Wolverhampton magistrates. I was amongst the latter. Whereas those sent to
Birmingham were immediately bailed, those of us sent to Wolverhampton were
remanded in custody by the resident bigot of a magistrate. On Monday the 5th
Defendant was released and the following day I was also given conditional bail,
a curfew and reporting weekly to the Brighton police.
I was remanded to Winson
Green prison which was made famous in 1975 when the Birmingham 6 were met by a ‘reception
committee’ of warders who beat
them up. This followed similar beatings by the West Midlands Police. The
prison however has changed from these dark days.
Although it was
frustrating being remanded Winson Green was far more tolerable than being in a
police cell. The food was much better and we had a TV in the cells and association
with other inmates although we were locked in a cell for 23 hours a day because
of COVID, which is rampant in the prison.
Being a recipient of a
liver transplant I have to take immune-suppressive drugs each day. This was not
possible at the police holding centre and thus in the early hours of Thursday
morning, handcuffed and accompanied by 2 prison warders I spent 6 hours at
Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth A&E obtaining a week’s prescription, which had
to be collected later that day by another warder.
I was pleasantly surprised
that one of the questions asked at reception was whether I was a racist! I did
not see any sign of racial abuse from warders in P wing nor any racist banter
among inmates.
Another series of
questions concerned whether I was an extremist!
I had much pleasure pointing out to the warder that all those who have
fought for democratic rights in the past, such as the Suffragettes were called
extremists in their time. It was an interesting conversation with a warder who
was not unsympathetic to my line of reasoning.
Not only were there large
numbers of Black and Muslim inmates but there was a considerable number of
Black warders. It made a change from my previous experience of being on remand,
nearly 50 years ago at Ashford Young Remand Centre (long since gone). There you were stripped naked at reception
and all the Black prisoners were physically assaulted by the White
warders. There were no Black warders.
Sarah Everard
Having access to a TV in our cells meant that I could catch up on the news and sure enough the main headlines concerned the murder and kidnap by a Metropolitan Policeman of Sarah Everard as she was walking home. PC Wayne Couzens had spent some 2½ years in the Met and clearly found his fellow officers and the Met’s institutional misogyny congenial. It would seem that fellow officers had covered up the fact that Couzens had exposed himself twice in a MacDonald’s two days before Sarah’s murder.
It was not surprising that
officers from the Met should object so strongly to vigils in support of Sarah
Everard that they attacked a peaceful vigil at Clapham Common using the COVID
regulations as an excuse.
The BBC excused the Met’s behaviour explaining
how the Police ‘were faced with a very
difficult decision.’ There was, of course, nothing difficult about the
decision. Every day the Police use their discretion not to enforce the law when
it comes to matters such as illegal evictions of tenants, racial harassment or
allowing the hunting. The Police are and always have been selective in which
laws they enforce. That is why fox hunts still continue.
No doubt the Waffen SS
faced ‘difficult decisions’ when faced with trainloads of Jews being sent to
Auschwitz. Not having the necessary accommodation they were no doubt ‘forced’
to kill them!
The Metropolitan Police,
like all police forces only more so, has always been a political police force.
No one forced the Met to collaborate, illegally, with building employers in blacklisting militants on
building sites. As even the BBC observed
‘A secret police document has revealed how the
Metropolitan Police's Special Branch helped the illegal blacklisting of trade
unionists - preventing them from getting jobs because of their political views.’
The Police set up the Special
Demonstration Squad in 1968.
Peter Francis, who infiltrated anti-racist groups
between 1993 and 1997 for the SDS, has shed unprecedented light on his former
unit, illuminating, for instance, how undercover officers routinely formed
sexual relationships with campaigners and stole the identities of dead
children.
The
SDS officers were a law unto themselves. Their targets were exclusively
on the left and environmental and animal rights groups. Their targets did
not include the far-Right which has repeatedly been involved in bomb plots and
terrorism. The SDS is now subject of a judicial inquiry but that is not
expected to go anywhere.
The
attack on the women’s vigil at Clapham should be a lesson to all those who
believe that all that is necessary is to introduce more women or Black people
into the Police. The Met is headed by a woman Police Commissioner, Cressida
Dick whose only difference from her male predecessors is the lack of a dick.
Our
trial and that of the others arrested is likely to take place next November,
COVID permitting..
There
are three solicitor firms involved – Kelly’s of Brighton, ITN in London and my
own firm, Riley Hayes in Birmingham. There is going to have to be a
co-ordinated defence strategy and a defence campaign against what are clearly
political charges. Our arguments are based on the common law defence of Necessity
and Duress.
In
essence they are that you can commit a smaller crime to prevent a greater crime. For example if you smash down a door to
rescue someone from a fire then you are committing criminal damage. Likewise if you spray red paint over the
factory to highlight the blood that its products spill then that is a lesser
evil.
Elbit’s Factories of Death
Elbit are quite upfront. They boast that their drones
(Unmanned Aerial Systems) ‘are the
backbone of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) UAS force.’ Their main selling
point is the experience they have in testing their systems in the field. Gaza
is where they perfect their technology.
Spyware
On 6 December 2017, Citizenlab
published a detailed report that showed that Ethiopian dissidents and
journalists in the US, UK, and other countries were targeted by sophisticated
commercial spyware, sold and operated by Cyberbit, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Elbit Systems. In a reply to an inquiry from Human Rights Watch on the topic, Cyberbit did
not deny selling this kind of technology.
Supplying the World’s Most Repressive Regimes
One of Elbit’s primary customers
is the Philippines, whose President, Rodrigo Duterte, is an open admirer of
Hitler. This didn’t stop him being shown around Israel’s holocaust propaganda
museum Yad Vashem which Israeli Professor Dan Blatman has described as a
‘a hard-working laundromat, striving to bleach out the sins of every anti-Semitic, fascist, racist or simply murderously thuggish leader or politician like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte and Italy’s Matteo Salvini.
The Diplomat described
how Elbit won its first contract in the Philippines for the supply of upgraded
armored personnel carriers in June 2014. In August 2020, the Philippine Air Force received full delivery of
three Hermes
900 and one Hermes 450 unmanned aerial systems (UAS) as part of a
contract worth approximately $175 million. Each system consists of three
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), a ground control system and support equipment.
In October 23, 2020 amid the COVID-19
pandemic, Elbit won further contracts to produce 18 Sabrah ASCOD Light Tanks
and 10 Pandur
II Tank Destroyers.
India
Goldie Osuri of
Warwick University described
in ‘Kashmir and Palestine: archives of
coloniality and solidarity’ how in 2018, as part of
Adani Global’s alliance with the Israeli company, Elbit saw the inauguration of
an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or drone manufacturing facility in Hyderabad servicing
the Indian and Israeli defence forces, which may be used in both Kashmir and in
Palestine [Global Studies in Culture and Power Volume
27, 2020]
Exasperating
militarization, repression, communalism and Islamophobia
One of Israel’s core propaganda messages is its
willingness to help India in its war in its ‘war on Muslim terror’. It is based
on the defense of one ethno-religious category against aspirations for justice and
is reinforcing communal oppression and conflicts within Indian society. Much of
the money spent on Israeli ‘security’ is directly used in repression in Kashmir
and the northeastern regions – just as in the case of Israeli repression of the
Palestinian people – without any prospect of advancing justice, which would be
the only way to achieve an end to the necessity of repression.
Israel’s dealings with India have been embedded in corruption
The most surprising aspect is India’s fondness
of Israeli UAVs even though they have a history of failures. After India first
bought Heron UAVs in 2002, two Indian Air Force and two Indian Army UAVs
crashed, killing one Air Force handler. The first crash of the UAV happened
soon after induction in 2003. On September 14 2015, the Indian government approved
the $400 million purchase of 10 armed Heron TP UAVs from IAI. With 22.5% of all
UAV imports over the 1985-2014 period, India has topped the list of unmanned aerial
systems importers. Other Israeli companies had similar experiences in India.
The guns produced by Elbit System’s subsidiary Soltam broke repeatedly during
tests and tests were simply repeated in order for Soltam to change the guns and
win the deal.
4) Global action to end military relations with
Israeli apartheid
In 2011, the
Palestinian BDS National Committee issued a call for a comprehensive military embargo
on Israel. The call include an end to military aid and weapons exports to
Israel, ending the transfer of weapons and military technology to Israel, and
ending all forms of military aid and research cooperation. The call for a
military embargo is now supported by political parties, NGOs, trade unions and
campaign groups across the world.
Some of the key
impacts of the campaign include:
·
Banks divest from
Elbit Systems: More than a dozen banks have announced that they have divested
from Elbit Systems over its role in Israel’s military violence, and the company
has been blacklisted by many investment advice companies. UK bank Barclays divested
after more than 1.7 million people signed a petition organised by Avaaz and
campaigners have occupied and protested at bank branches across the UK.
·
Elbit loses deals:
Elbit’s participation in a Brazilian drone development effort was terminated at
the beginning of 2016. This followed a 2014 decision by the Rio Grande do Sul 24
regional government to end a large-scale research collaboration project with
Elbit Systems. Elbit factories across the world have been repeatedly blockaded
by campaigners. Elbit has lost out on deals in Denmark and France following
public campaigns.
·
Countries reduce or
cut military trade with Israel: South Africa has maintained inthe last decade a
de facto freeze in military ties. The Norwegian government has an official policy
of not exporting weapons to Israel. In 2010, Norway even refused to allow the
testing of a submarine that a German company was manufacturing for Israel in its
waters.
·
Arms fairs protests:
Israeli participation in arms fairs has been contested across the globe – from
the Netherlands, to France, to Brazil and the US.
·
Campaigns against
police training: Especially in Brazil and the US, movements of black and marginalised
communities have teamed up with Palestine solidarity activists to stop Israeli
police training that reinforce and exasperate police brutality, racism and
repression
See Stop
Indo-Israeli military ties
Myanamar/Burma
The Jerusalem Post reported that Elbit and 2 other Israeli companies, Cellebrite and Gaia Automotive Industries, supplied drones that have been used in the Myanmar coup. Jerusalem was supposed to end all military exports to Myanmar, after allegations emerged that weaponry was being sold to the army.
The
New York Times published a report which revealed that
“Israeli-made surveillance drones, European iPhone
cracking devices and American software that can hack into computers and vacuum
up their contents,” were used by the generals to carry out their coup despite
various sanctions and international arms embargoes which prohibit such systems
from being exported to the country.
“The military is now using those very tools to
brutally crack down on peaceful protesters risking their lives to resist the military
junta and restore democracy,”
The report found that
Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit, which claims to have had “no dealings with Myanmar since 2015 or 2016” supplied spare parts
to repair military grade Elbit drones in late 2019.
In 2018 Israel was
supposed to have blocked
all military exports to Burma after reports emerged that Israeli weaponry was
being sold to the Burmese Army which had been accused of using them in genocidal
actions towards the Muslim Rohingya ethnic minority.
The Independent reported
that
‘Israel
has been accused of continuing to sell military equipment to the Burmese
military even as it faced accusations of war crimes against minority Rohingya
Muslims.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied media reports that it had sold
advanced weapons to Burma and rejected any "alleged
involvement in the tragedy in the Rakhine region." But that was a lie.
When Israel’s High Court was petitioned to prevent arms sales to Burma, the government
sought and obtained a gag order on the Court’s own ruling! In other words it is
a criminal offence to even publish the Court’s ruling! There are still some
people who describe Israel as just another Western democracy.
More than 600,000 Rohingya Muslims fled
Burma to Bangladesh since a military crackdown was launched in August 2017. The
United Nations denounced it as a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.
Ha’aretz reported
that “Welcome to the Myanmar Navy,” was the caption on the Myanmar Navy’s
Facebook page, in honor of the arrival of an Israeli patrol boat to Myanmar’s
shore. “The Super-Dvora MK III is moving
forward at 45 knots on Myanmar waters,” the post continued.
Fighting
Back Against Elbit’s War Crimes
Extinction Rebellion reported how UK-based Israeli arms factories
smashed and blockaded on the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. It quoted from a Press release from Palestine Action, UK, Dec 2020.
Israel’s
UK-based arms company Elbit systems, woke up to two of their key factories
smashed, sprayed and painted red by Palestine Action on the morning of the
Balfour Declaration anniversary. Simultaneously, activists are blockading
Elbit’s other subsidiary, UAV Engines in Shenstone, forcing three of their
weapons factories to shut down.
These
multifaceted ‘hits’ against Israel’s largest arms company have set a new
precedent for sustained direct action, involving 100s of activists from up and
down the UK. Palestine Action, a new and rapidly growing movement challenging
the UK’s unwavering support for Israel’s apartheid regime, have set out to symbolically
de-commemorate the 103-year anniversary of the fateful Balfour Declaration.
Palestine Action’s statement goes on to describe Elbit
as a company which openly markets its weapons as “battle tested ” on Palestinian civilians. They are supplying the
world’s most notorious repressive regimes, including India’s current occupation
of Kashmir.
Both the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency, as well as
the UK police, have been trialing Elbit’s drones to mass-surveil large
stretches of our coastline, in line with Priti Patel’s militarisation of the
English Channel.
The EU’s border agency Frontex has also contracted
Elbit to surveil the Mediterranean, leaving the lives of migrants, refugees and
asylum seekers, fleeing war torn countries, in mortal danger. The EU was
recently accused of “watching” migrants drown rather than investing in ways to
save them.
Elbit Systems has also played a key role in the
development of Trump’s militarised US/Mexico border wall, while the very same
technologies are also being used to securitise and control the native O’odham
people on Arizona’s indigenous reserves.
The Legal Context
The
legal context in which Palestine Action operates is that of Universal
Jurisdiction. There is a very useful Briefing
by Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights of which I’ve copied the most
relevant extracts below.
LPHR
briefing on Universal Jurisdiction
5.
The precise definition of UJ, and
the manner in which it is implemented, varies somewhat between different
States. However, the fundamental purposive approach is that in the case of the
gravest crimes under international law, accountability (in the form of
individual criminal responsibility) should be provided for, regardless of the
territory in which the offences were committed in or the nationality of the
alleged offender. The UK gives effect to the principle of UJ through statutory
law. Section 1(1) of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 provides:
“Any person, whatever his nationality, who,
whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures
the commission by any other person of a grave breach of any of the scheduled
conventions, the first protocol or the third protocol shall be guilty of an
offence”. (emphasis added)
6.
Similar wording in relation to the
offence of torture is found in S134
of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which provides that:
“A public official or person acting in an
official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if
in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or
suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his
official duties”. (emphasis added)
8.
Under section
51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, it is an offence against
the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against
humanity or a war crime. This section applies to acts committed in England and
Wales, but also in some circumstances to those committed outside of the UK (if
by a UK national, resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction).
Notably the Geneva Conventions Act and the Criminal Justice Act do not have the
same restriction, and operate so that the UK can exercise jurisdiction over an
individual “whatever his nationality”.
9.
A general principle which underpins
UJ is the presumption in favour of territoriality. The general position is that
criminal offences are most likely to be effectively investigated and prosecuted
in the territory where they have been allegedly committed.
Universal
Jurisdiction at work in the UK
10.
Whilst these types of cases are
exceptional, there have been some occasions of UJ arrests and prosecutions in
the UK. On 18 July 2005, an Afghan warlord named Faryadi Sarwar Zardad was found guilty of torture and
hostage taking in what was thought to be the first successful conviction in the
UK for a crime committed abroad. The trial followed an investigation which
involved UK police officers visiting Afghanistan to identify and take accounts
from victims. Witnesses gave evidence at the trial at the Old Bailey via video
link from the UK embassy in Kabul. Upon conviction Mr Zardad was sentenced to a
20 year custodial sentence.
11.
In January 2013, a Nepalese
Colonel, Kumar Lama was arrested in East Sussex and charged with two
counts of torture under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 relating
to incidents that had allegedly occurred in 2005. This arrest and prosecution
did not ultimately lead to a conviction.
Palestine Action
There has been a pattern
of harassment of Palestine Action and groups like Extinction Rebellion,
which took
part in the Oldham occupation. Palestine Action is a new grassroots network
of anti-racist groups and individuals taking direct action to end UK complicity
with Israel’s colonial and Apartheid regime. Despite the UK Foreign Secretary
Dominic Raab’s attempts to shut the group down, its popularity is growing both
in the UK and now, internationally. It has, to date, targeted Elbit over 40
times, and will routinely, systematically, continue to escalate its actions
until the British Government and this evil arms company can no longer profit
from the death of Palestinian civilians. The ultimate aim is to shut Elbit down
and end all UK complicity with Israeli apartheid
As Huda Ammori from Palestine Action stated
“The
oppression of the Palestinians and the Kashmiri people, of migrants and
refugees, does not happen in isolation. It happens because of the colonial legacy
of this country.
See Israel's largest arms manufacturer targeted in London by Palestine Action activists
Please Sign the Petition: No
Israeli Killer Drones for the Europe
PSC is Taking the Coward’s
Way Out and Trying to Undermine Palestine Action
Following the success of Palestine Action in raising
the profile of the campaign against Elbit, you might imagine that Palestine
Solidarity Campaign would lend its support.
Not a bit of it. The Executive,
led by Director Ben Jamal and its equally useless Chair, Kamal Hawash, have
done their best to undermine support for PA, distributing a distilled version
of legal advice from Bindman’s Solicitors. What they have refused to do is to
distribute the legal advice itself.
The gist of the advice is that people or groups who
contribute financially or otherwise to PA may themselves be liable. At a time
when the Government is proposing a Police
and Crime Bill and organisations are campaigning against these attack on
basic civil liberties, PSC chooses to attack those campaigning against Elbit.
The group which controls PSC, the subterranean
Socialist Action and associated splinters, are fearful of any independent
initiatives taken outside their control.
That explains their backstabbing attacks on direct action. They have
even lobbied Omar Barghouti and the BNC National Committee to try and get them
to dissociate themselves from the activists.
The advice that they give below is basically
rubbish. The Police have never tried to
charge people who fund groups who may go on to commit criminal offences. To
raise this prospect is in itself an invitation to the state to extend its
activities. Just as with the fake ‘anti-Semitism’
campaign PSC hauls the white flag of surrender in advance. The following advice
was distributed to all PSC groups. My advice is to ignore it and treat it with
contempt.
Palestine
Solidarity Campaign on Palestinian Action
Palestine
Action
Kamel
Hawwash and Ben Jamal outlined concerns about the activities of the group
Palestine Action, following discussion at PSC's Executive Committee. A number
of key partners, including the leadership of the Boycott National Committee
(BNC) in Palestine, have discussed with PSC concerns about the activities of
this group, and the risks to the wider movement. BNC have communicated these
concerns directly to Palestine Action, and asked them to remove all references
to BDS from their website, a request eventually complied with by Palestine
Action.
PSC
has sought legal advice about the potential liabilities arising from the
commission of acts of criminal damage of high monetary levels (more than £5000)
and how these may also apply to those offering support to these activities even
if not undertaking the activities themselves. This advice included noting that
Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 states that it is an offence to
intentionally or recklessly damage property that belongs to another person. A
person convicted of criminal damage can be sentenced to a maximum of 3 months
imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £2500 if the value of the damage caused is
under £5000. If the value of the damage caused exceeds £5000 a person can be
sentenced to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
These
liabilities potentially extend to both individuals encouraging or assisting
criminal acts (including, for example, providing financial support), and
organisations, including PSC branches that offered encouragement or assistance.
These
concerns are not raised because PSC, or the BDS Movement is opposed to any form
of direct action. Instead, they are raised because of the strategic and legal
risks associated with the type of action being conducted by the group. PSC sought
the advice to ensure it was discharging its duty of care to members to ensure
they were aware of possible legal consequences of their association or support
for Palestine Action's activities.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please submit your comments below