Demonstration 9.30 am Friday 31 January, The Old Bailey

My ‘Crime’ is Supporting Palestinian Resistance While the British State Aids Israel’s Genocide

Hillary Clinton: "we created the problem we are fighting today" | How the US created al-Qaeda

On December 20 2023 I was arrested in a dawn raid at my home by officers of Counter-Terrorism Police SE. Their logo states that their objective is to counter terrorism but today it is to criminalise support for liberation movements and anti-colonial struggles – be they in Palestine or Kurdistan.

My first reaction on being told I was being arrested for a tweet I had posted a month previously was ‘this is Orwellian’ .  At first I was led to believe that I was being prosecuted under s.12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, ‘expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation’.

Now I understand the prosecution is under s.12(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000

This is a blatant attempt to criminalise support for any anti-colonial or resistance organisation of the oppressed. Israel is in an illegal occupation of Gaza, as it has been for 58 years but any expression for armed resistance against Israel’s military and genocidal violence is a criminal offence.

We only have to remember when Margaret Thatcher called the ANC a terrorist organisation to know that none of this is new. There has always been an attempt by governments to brand armed opposition ‘terrorist’. The Nazis called the French and Czech resistance ‘terrorist’.

As Professor John Dugard KC, a distinguished South Africa International Lawyer and ad-hoc judge of the International Court of Justice said:

Terrorism is an emotive word that has no place in the assessment of the conduct of either a government or a resistance movement. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Few would today label members of the French resistance in World War II as “terrorist” and most would have no hesitation in describing the Nazi forces as “terrorist”. Yet today most western states refrain from describing the acts of government forces as acts of terror but have no hesitation in so describing the acts of resistance movements and other non-state actors.

The Central Criminal Court 'The Old Bailey'

The use of proscription, be it against Hamas or the PKK, the Kurdish Workers Party is an attempt to shut down free speech on support for groups that the British government does not approve of for political reasons. It has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

We all know what terrorism is. It is the planting of a bomb in July 2017 that killed 22 young people at the Manchester Arena Ariana Grande Concert or the attack by ISIS on the Bataclan concert in Paris that murdered some 100 people.

But here’s the rub. Salman Abedi was allowed to go to fight with Libyan jihadi groups in the fight against Colonel Gaddaffis’s government by MI5.  ISIS which carried out the Bataclan attacks didn’t even exist before Britain and the United States illegal attack on Iraq.

The ‘terrorism’ that is used as a pretext to attack domestic support for the resistance organisations of the oppressed has in most cases been created by western foreign policy. Hilary Clinton admitted that it was US policy of supporting Jihadi fighters in Afghanistan which created Al Qaeda.  Every time that the British and American states have employed far-right Islamist fighters to take out regimes they don’t like there has been blow back.

And today we see the blow back in terms of our own rights and civil liberties. It is not me, Natalie Strecker, Sarah Wilkinson or Asa Winstanley or Richard Medhurst, all of whom have had their homes raided, computer equipment stolen and been arrested and/or charged (except for Asa) accused of supporting terrorism. That accolade belongs to the British government and the intelligence agencies.

That is what my trial and the trial of all the other people who have been arrested is about.  And that is why you should join me on Friday January 31 outside the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, in London.

The government has even attempted to roll back the right of jurors, derived from the 1670 case of Edward Bushells, to deliver a verdict contrary to a judge’s directions and in accordance with their conscience with the arrest of Trudy Warner and others who had the temerity to inform jurors of their right.

In other words the right of juries to do justice rather than to follow the conservative interpretation of the law that one can expect from the most exclusive profession in Britain, i.e. Judges. See Solicitor general to appeal over case of climate activist who held sign on jurors’ rights

Tony Greenstein