Opposition to Zionist War Crimes & Support for Palestinian Resistance is ‘Terrorism’ in the Eyes of The Establishment –

Tony Greenstein & Richard Medhurst Explain What is at Stake

Registration

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86445763038

Tony Greenstein's Speech at the Old Bailey

Journalist Richard Medhurst Raided and Detained

Does anyone remember Starmer’s 10 Pledges on which he was elected in April 202 as Labour Party leader? Let me remind you.

Pledge No. 4 promised to ‘Promote Peace & Human Rights’. He promised “no more illegal wars” which has already been broken by British participation in Israel’s genocide. We have heard nothing about his promise of a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and as for his promise to “put human rights at the heart of foreign policy” well that is a sick joke.

And as for Starmer’s promise to ‘review all arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice’ the least said the better. Just 8% of all arms contracts to Israel have been frozen.

Last week the home of journalist Richard Medhurst was raided and 19 pages of his electronic devices and equipment were seized by the Austrian police almost certainly in co-ordination with the British anti-terror police. This follows on from the arrest and detention for 3 days of Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada in Switzerland. It is clear that the repression of activists and journalists in Britain is being duplicated across Europe.

The Process is the Punishmment

On 4 December four UN Special Rapporteurs - independent human rights experts who advise the United Nations on human rights issues – wrote to the British government demanding an explanation for its persecution of journalists and political activists under the Terrorism Acts. They stated that those persecuted ‘appear to have no credible connection to “terrorist” or “hostile” activity.’ They demanded an explanation for the government’s abuse of the Terrorism Act to raid, harass, intimidate and criminalise journalists and political activists who expose and resist Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The government had 60 days to respond but it has not bothered to do so, hence why the letter has been made public. In it, the Rapporteurs state that those the government is targeting ‘appear to have no credible connection to “terrorist” or “hostile” activity’.

The Two Zionist Law Officers Behind the Prosecution and Persecution of Journalists - in Israel they shoot or ban journalists - now they are trying out the same in the UK

You might think that the whole purpose of anti-terrorism legislation is to prevent terrorism. Apparently not so. Terrorist acts seem to be the excuse to clamp down on liberties that otherwise the government would be too afraid to touch. The exercise of free speech and the ability to speak one’s mind seem to particularly distress government minister. ‘Human rights’ lawyer Starmer and his Zionist Attorney General Hermer and Sarah Sackman, Vice-President of the genocide supporting Jewish Labour Movement have other ideas. Supporting the Palestinian resistance against Israel’s genocide in Gaza, which obviously includes Hamas, is a form of terrorism.

I am charged with ‘inviting support for Hamas’. I’m not quite sure what that means since nothing I or others say or do is going to have the slightest effect on Hamas’s ability to pursue a guerrilla war against Israel’s murderous army.

I haven’t invited anyone to join Hamas, indeed I don’t even know whether someone in Britain is eligible to join. I certainly don’t know how to apply and I’ve never had the slightest interest in joining myself. Quite why a Jewish atheist should want to join an Islamist organisation is a mystery that only those whose expertise is in twisting words and meanings out all recognition could answer.

An Israeli War Criminal Alon Misrahi Who Later Committed Suicide

If there was ever a just war then the fight against Israel’s army is just that. As Israel bombs and destroys every single hospital, school and university in Gaza, the Palestinian resistance wages a courageous fight against a murderous army that takes thousands of civilians prisoners in order to incarcerate them in Israel’s torture camps.

The fight of the Palestinian resistance is as just as the fight of the French and Czech resistance against the Nazis. As the old saying goes ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist’.

The official casualty rate in Gaza is now 62,000 but that is almost certainly a vast underestimate. In December 2024 The Lancet projected a death toll of 186,000. The total today could be 300,000, over 10% of Gaza’s population.

The UN rapporteurs made their views clear as to what the clear purpose of the persecution of activists and journalists was.

the potential misapplication of counter-terrorism laws against journalists and activists who were critical of the policies and practices of certain governments, which may unjustifiably interfere with the rights to freedom of expression and opinion and participation in public life, lead to self-censorship and have a serious chilling effect on the media, civil society and legitimate political and public discourse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn2PKOrqmfI&t=24s

Craig Murray Addresses the UN in Geneva on Western government attacks on civil liberty

Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 has been used to charge journalists and activists, including Richard Barnard and Richard Medhurst, for allegedly expressing support for a “proscribed organisation” in the course of activism and media reporting…

…we raise concern about an alleged pattern of over use, or other misuse, of counter-terrorism legislation to target legitimate freedom of expression and opinion, including public interest media reporting, and related freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and political dissent or activism.

The UN Rapporteurs singled out the notorious section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalizes expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation and being reckless as to whether it encouraged support for that organisation. This is what I was originally arrested. The Rapporteurs wrote:

The term “support” is undefined in the Act and in our view is vague and overbroad and may unjustifiably criminalize legitimate expression.

We note that there is no requirement that the expression of support relate to the commission of violent terrorist acts by the organization. As such, the offence may unjustifiably criminalize the expression of opinion or belief that is not rationally, proximately or causally related to actual terrorist violence or harms. The offence further does not require any likelihood that the support will assist the organization in any way. It goes well beyond the accepted restrictions on freedom of expression under

international law concerning the prohibition of incitement to violence or hate speech…

As the UK Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights observed

‘the meaning of expressing support for a proscribed organization is ambiguous and could capture speech that is neither necessary nor proportionate to criminalize, including legitimate debates about the de-proscription of an organization and disagreement with a government’s decision to proscribe.’

However the Court of Appeal has put the most restrictive and oppressive interpretation on the legislation.

The Court of Appeal further indicated that it could include “encouragement, emotional help, mental comfort and the act of writing or speaking in favour of something”. The Court reasoned that “[the] organisation as a body, and the individual members or adherents of it, will derive encouragement from the fact that they have the support of others, even if it may not in every instance be active or tangible support”.

In other words the charges against activists have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism but everything to do with opposition to Britain’s support for Israel’s war crimes. There is an International Criminal Court Act 2001, s.51 of which makes it

an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime.

The section ‘applies to acts committed—

(a) in England or Wales, or

(b) outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national, a United Kingdom resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction.

Section 52 makes it ‘an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to engage in conduct ancillary to an act to which this section applies.’ Sub-section 2 makes it clear that not only does this apply to behaviour in England Wales but that it also applies to conduct ‘which, being committed (or intended to be committed) outside England and Wales, does not constitute such an offence.’

The UN Rapporteurs note that

some proscribed organizations are de facto authorities performing a diversity of civilian functions, including governance, humanitarian and

medical activities, and provision of social services, public utilities and education. Expressing support for any of these ordinary civilian activities by the organization could constitute expressing support for it, no matter how remote such expression is from support for any violent terrorist acts by the group’.

When the British government under Priti Patel proscribed, not only the military but the political wing of Hamas, they were effectively saying that a doctor who was a member of Hamas’s political wing was also a terrorist. This proscription is an invitation to genocide and is thus unlawful, not only under domestic legislation but the Geneva Convention on Genocide. As Genocide is the ultimate crime, the proscription simply falls by the way. Except that Britain’s Police, being institutionally racist, believe that the lives of Palestinians counts for nothing.

Tony Greenstein at the Old Bailey

The UN Rapporteurs also wrote of their concern that

the absence of legal certainty may have a chilling effect on the media, public debate, activism, and the activities of civil society, in a context where there is a heightened public interest in discussion of the conflict in the Middle East, including the conduct of the parties and the underlying conditions conducive to violence in the region. We are further concerned that a person could be prosecuted for isolated remarks or sentences that mischaracterize the overall position of the individual, or despite the individual’s intentions or continued and express disavowal of terrorist violence, given the subjectivity and contested meanings of certain expressions in relation to sensitive or controversial political conflicts…

The recommendation of the UN Rapporteurs is that the government should

repeal section 12(1A), or otherwise to amend it to protect freedom of expression, and to develop prosecutorial guidelines for its appropriate use to avoid the unnecessary or disproportionate incrimination of political dissent.

We are concerned that police powers at UK border areas and ports under

schedule 7 may be unjustifiably used against journalists and activists who are critical of Western foreign policy. ... We are concerned that such powers carry a risk of intimidating, deterring, and disrupting the ability of journalists to report on topics of public importance without self-censorship…

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, have been used to examine and obtain data from journalists and activists, including Johanna Ross (Ganyukova), John Laughland, Kit Klarenberg, Craig Murray and Richard Medhurst in circumstances where they appear to have no credible connection to “terrorist” or “hostile” activity.

This of course is exactly what has happened. Academics such as Professor Ilan Pappe have been stopped as have a series of radical and dissident journalists. All with the blessing of a Prime Minister who still lays claim to being a human rights lawyer. The Rapporteurs write that they are particular concerned at

the growing number of instances where schedule 7 may have been inappropriately directed towards journalists and activists, and to consider addressing this through amendments to the legislation, guidance for relevant officials, and training of border security officers. We further encourage your Excellency’s Government to address the judiciary’s concerns regarding the retention of electronic data

Not surprisingly Starmer has not only ignored it but decided to prosecute both myself and Natalie Strecker under the anti-terror legislation despite neither of us posing any threat of terrorism. Journalist Richard Medhurst has been charged under the Terrorism Act for doing his job and refusing to hand over passwords that would allow the state to rifle through contacts, sources and confidential communications.

The UN letter also details some of their criticisms concerning the badly-written Terrorism Act 2000, which is (deliberately) so broad that it can be abused in the way that the Starmer regime is now doing:

We are concerned at the vagueness and overbreadth of the offence in section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalizes expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation and being reckless as to whether it encouraged support for that organisation. We reiterate the many concerns about this offence identified by the UK Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights in its report on the bill that introduced the offence.

The UN Rapporteurs note that

The suggestion by the Court of Appeal that any support will somehow encourage the organization is nebulous and tenuous, and over-extends liability to capture speech that may have a very remote and speculative relationship to terrorist violence.

We note further that view of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that the predicate definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is itself over-broad and “unduly restrictive of political expression”, and has been criticized also by the two Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation and the UK Supreme Court in R v. Gul (2013)

Further, the section 12(1A) offence does not require the person to intend to encourage others to support the organization. The lower mental element of “recklessness” is sufficient, namely where the person had some subjective foresight that their conduct will result in the proscribed outcome and nonetheless engages in it in circumstances where a reasonable person would not.

The UK Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has warned that a mental element of recklessness when applied to acts of speech alone is dangerous; and that this is aggravated by the lack of clarity as to what speech constitutes an expression of support.

The principle of legality under article 15(1) of the ICCPR requires that criminal laws are sufficiently precise so that it is clear what conduct constitutes an offence and the legal consequences of committing an offence. This principle seeks to prevent ill-defined and/or overly broad laws which are open to arbitrary application and abuse, including to target civil society on political or other unjustified grounds (A/70/371, para. 46(b)). We are concerned that section 12(1A) does not meet this standard because of its vagueness and overbreadth.

The Human Rights Committee has stipulated that these restrictions must be “the least intrusive instrument” among those which might achieve the desired result and must be “proportionate to the interest to be protected” (general comment No. 27, para. 14). In this respect we emphasize that the section 12(1A) offence is unnecessary since there is already an offence of “encouragement of terrorism” under section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which is a more calibrated and proportionate offence targeting encouragement of terrorist crimes.

The UN Rapporteurs also criticize Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, pointing out its similar unfitness and scope for abuse and miscarriages of justice. They say that

We are further concerned that the extensive powers authorised under section 2 do not require any degree of suspicion that a person falls within the meaning of “terrorist” at section 40(1)(b).

The extreme breadth of such power enables unnecessary, disproportionate, arbitrary or discriminatory interference with an individual’s rights, including freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom of movement under article 12(1) of the ICCPR, and the rights to leave and

enter one’s own country under article 12(2) and (4) of the ICCPR.

There is no material on which to form a rational judgement as to whether the use of the powers

are necessary or proportionate in the individual case. Even a “hunch” or the “professional intuition” of the officer concerned could be the basis on which the powers will be exercised.

The arbitrary potential of the power is compounded by the low threshold of determining whether a person merely “appears” to fall within section 40(1)(b). The safeguards around the power, such as restrictions on the location, duration, type of questioning and search, and the supervision of the Independent Reviewer of terrorism legislation, are insufficient to prevent the misuse of the power and the potential harm caused to the rights of the individuals examined.

We are further concerned that the retention of electronic data under section 11A(3)(a) “for so long as is necessary for the purpose of determining whether a person falls within section 40(1)(b)” is disproportionate, particularly if it were used to justify retention indefinitely so as to provide a bank of data for future use in connection with subsequent investigations or the collection or receipt of additional information.

We consider that the retention of data for a long period should require an objectively established ground for the suspicion and be strictly necessary and proportionate to that law enforcement objective. In this regard, we refer your Excellency’s government to article 17 of the ICCPR which requires that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with [their] privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on [their] honour and reputation”.

We note that several journalists detained under schedule 7 have had their electronic devices confiscated for a significant period of time and have not been updated on the use, retention or destruction of their data, or advised in relation to their personal data protection rights.

The term “hostile act” is defined at section 1(6) as an act which: “(a) threatens national security; (b) threatens the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in a way relevant to the interests of national security; or (c) is an act of serious crime”.

What is ‘threatening the economic well-being of the UK’? It could be argued that a general strike or even a strike in important areas of the economy such as docks constitute such a threat.

We raise similar concerns regarding the vague and over-broad definition of “hostile activity”, which includes the sweeping terms “national security” and “economic well-being”. The ambiguity within these concepts reposes an extraordinary discretion in the police when exercising the relevant powers, increasing the risk of unnecessary, disproportionate or otherwise arbitrary interferences in the rights to liberty and privacy, and having a chilling effect on freedoms of thought, conscience, opinion and expression, including in relation to journalists and activists.

The letter is signed by:

· Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protectiSpecial Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism

· Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

· Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

· Ana Brian Nougrères, Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy

The letter effectively accuses the Starmer regime of the deliberate abuse of anti-terrorism legislation to criminalise free speech on Palestine to protect Israel, because of Starmer’s absolute commitment to Zionism and the ‘right’ of Israel to murder whoever it wants..

Tony Greenstein

See full letter from the UN Rapporteurs

Craig Murray’s United Nations Censures UK Over Abuse of Terrorism Act Against Journalists and Activists