We live in an Orwellian World Where Opposition to Genocide is Terrorism & Support for Genocide is a Mark of Civilisation
Please Register Here
Alexei Sayle on how Starmer, Yvette Cooper and Lammy have sold their souls to the devil
On Friday we are holding a Zoom Webinar around the
theme of resisting the attacks of the state and the abuse of the anti-terrorism
laws against Palestine solidarity supporters and Palestine Action. Five of the
eight speakers have themselves been arrested under the Terrorism Acts and
Sukaina Rajwani is speaking on behalf of the Filton 24, some of whom have been
in prison for over a year on remand without being found guilty of anything
simply because their actions, criminal damage at worst, have been branded as
terrorism, a designation compliant judges have been only too happy to accept.
The other two speakers are Huda Ammori, founder of
Palestine Action and Frank Magennis, who has been outspoken in support of the
right to protest and who is involved in the legal battle to remove the
proscription of Hamas.
U.K.’s Mass Arrests Of The Elderly For THOUGHT CRIMES!
We are living through one of those periods where
freedom of speech and the right to protest is under threat. The Terrorism Acts
are being used, not to fight the terrorist groups that British and US foreign
policy created, but to combat those who oppose British foreign policy, in
particular its alliance with the genocidal State of Israel.
We are seeing the growth of authoritarianism under
Starmer and Yvette Cooper – all in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’. It takes a
peculiarly sick and twisted mind to call those opposing genocide ‘terrorists’
and to call those who are killing and starving children your allies. But there
is no iniquity that this pair are not capable of.
Starmer, Cooper, Lammy & Nandy - War Criminals All
Starmer and Lammy have shed
crocodile tears over the genocide in Gaza but have refused to call Israel’s
actions what they clearly are. If they
had been serious when they criticised Israel then they would have stopped all arms
supplies, declared that Netanyahu was persona
non grata and imposed sanctions and a trade ban on Israel. They can do it
against Russia over Ukraine where hardly any children have been killed but not
against the Zionist Apartheid State of Israel.
Instead they targeted two members of Netanyahu’s
cabinet –Ben Gvir and Smotrich - and a few token settlers for token sanctions.
The complicity of this ‘Labour’
government in Israel’s genocide is no longer accepted. It is irrelevant if the
parliamentary sheep have decided to proscribe
Palestine Action alongside two neo-Nazi groups.
On 9th August over 500 people were prepared to be
arrested and hopefully on 6th September a 1,000 will be prepared
to be arrested for the ‘crime’ of supporting Palestine Action.
On 20th July the High Court granted permission
to apply for judicial review. Judicial decisions are not taken in a political vacuum.
It was this mass defiance of the law, after the proscription came into force on
5th July, which persuaded Justice Chamberlain, who had previously refused
interim relief, to grant the application.
Since then former Supreme Court Judge,
Jonathan Sumption, has come out against the misuse of anti-terrorism laws to
criminalise those whose only offence is to verbally support so-called terrorist
organisation. In an article
for The Independent he wrote that:
Merely
indicating your support for a terrorist organisation without doing anything to
assist or further its acts should not be a criminal offence and is consistent
with basic rights to free speech.
The willingness of people to continue to
defy the law will be a strong factor in the eventual decision as to whether the
proscription remains.
The irony is that earlier the same day that Palestine Action was proscribed Cooper was photographed
in the colours of the Suffragettes.
One wonders what Cooper and her fellow female
skunks, like Angela Eagle – would have said if they had been around in 1913 and
1914.
Here are some examples of the activities
of the Suffragettes, the Womens’ Social and Political Union.
The WSPU, led by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst, adopted
the slogan “Deeds, not words” and
they certainly lived up to it.
Between
1912 and 1914, at least 4 people were
killed and more than 24 were injured, though the total number of injuries is
likely higher.
Fatalities
o Portsmouth
dockyard fire (1913): Two men were killed in a large fire started at the
dockyard.
o Bradford
arson attacks (1913): A series of arsons in rural areas resulted in the deaths
of at least two men.
The Sisterhood of War Criminals - Cooper & Hotoveli
Injuries
o Postmen burned: Several
postmen were severely burned by letter bombs and chemicals poured into post
boxes during the campaign.
o In
February 1913, five postmen in Dundee were burned, four severely, by a letter
bomb intended for Prime Minister H.H. Asquith.
o A postman
in Birmingham was seriously burned by noxious substances in a letter box in
July 1913.
o In
December 1913, multiple postal workers in Nottingham suffered severe burns.
Train incidents:
o In April
1913, a bomb exploded near a train line in Stockport, and flying debris grazed
the head of the train driver.
o In July
1914, a train guard in Salwick was badly burned on his arms while throwing a
lit letter bomb off a moving train.
Other incidents:
o In July
1912, a suffragette hurled a hatchet at Prime Minister Asquith, narrowly
missing him and instead cutting Irish MP John Redmond on the ear.
o In December 1913, windows were
blown out of houses near Holloway Prison
after a wall was bombed, showering sleeping children with glass. A
suffragette was also injured by the blast.
o A man was injured by a dynamite
bomb at the Harewood Army Barracks in January 1914.
o In April 1914, passers-by were
showered with broken glass from a bomb that exploded in London's St
Martin-in-the-Fields church.
Notable acts of arson
·
Lloyd George's house
(1913): A house
under construction for Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George was
fire-bombed. Emmeline Pankhurst was later arrested for inciting the attack.
·
Kew Gardens
(1913): A tea pavilion was burned down.
·
Hurst Park Racecourse
(1913): The grandstand was set on fire by suffragette Kitty
Marion.
·
Aberuchill Castle
(1914): Militants set fire to the castle, narrowly avoiding
fatalities.
·
Churches and landmarks (1913–1914): A
campaign of bombing and arson targeted churches, including St Martin-in-the-Fields
and Westminster Abbey, where a bomb damaged the Coronation Chair.
Yet
Yvette Cooper, whilst branding Palestine Action, who have never injured anyone,
as ‘terrorists’ identifies with the Suffragettes. Hypocrisy
is the compliment that vice pays to virtue.
There is
nothing new in this attack on freedom of speech and the right to protest. Over
the past three centuries, Britain has experienced several periods of authoritarianism
or government measures that suppressed freedom of speech, protest, and
demonstration. Here are some of the main periods:
1. Restoration
and Post-Civil War Repression (1660–1688)
·
Context: After the English Civil War and the
Commonwealth, the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II led to efforts
to suppress dissent and control public discourse.
- Key
Restrictions:
Licensing Act of 1662: Required all
publications to be approved by the Stationers’ Company, effectively censoring
printed materials and limiting freedom of speech.
Conventicle Acts (1664, 1670): Banned nonconformist
religious gatherings of more than five people, restricting freedom of
association and religious expression.
Suppression of Republican and Nonconformist Voices: Dissenters, such as Quakers and Puritans, faced imprisonment and fines
for public preaching or organizing.
Impact: Political and religious dissent was
heavily curtailed, with harsh penalties for seditious speech or unauthorized
assemblies.
Resolution: The Glorious Revolution (1688) and
the Bill of Rights (1689) eased some restrictions, though
limitations persisted.
18th Century
1.
Daniel
Defoe (1660-1731):
A prolific writer and satirist, Defoe was arrested for seditious libel in 1703
after publishing "The Shortest-Way with the Dissenters."
The satirical pamphlet, intended to expose the absurdity of anti-dissenter
policies, was taken literally by some, leading to his arrest. He was sentenced to a fine, a prison term, and was put in the
pillory for three days, a punishment that he ironically celebrated in his poem
"Hymn to the Pillory."
2. John Wilkes (1725-1797):
A radical journalist and politician, he advocated for press
freedom and parliamentary reform. Wilkes was a radical journalist and a fierce critic of King George III
and his ministers.
In 1763, he published an article
in his newspaper, The North Briton, accused the government of lying about the
Treaty of Paris, leading to Wilkes’ arrest for seditious libel. He was imprisoned
in the Tower of London under a general warrant but released due to his
parliamentary privilege. He faced further legal battles, including a 1768
arrest for libel and rioting after his return from exile in France.
He was later convicted of seditious libel and expelled from Parliament,
but he became a hero of free speech and a symbol of popular dissent.
Wilkes’ cases became rallying points for press freedom and civil
liberties, challenging the legality of general warrants. He later served as Lord
Mayor of London and an MP, becoming a symbol of resistance to government
overreach.
3.
John Almon
(1737–1805)
A bookseller, publisher, and journalist, Almon was a key figure in
disseminating radical political pamphlets and newspapers critical of the
government.
In 1765, Almon was tried for seditious libel for publishing The Political
Register and a pamphlet, A Letter Concerning Libels, which criticized the
government’s use of libel laws to suppress dissent. He faced further legal
pressure in the 1770s for publishing Junius’ letters, which attacked government
corruption.
Almon was fined and briefly imprisoned but continued publishing. His
trials highlighted the government’s efforts to control the press during a
period of growing radicalism.
Early 19th Century (Post-Napoleonic
Wars, early 1800s):
o
The
Peterloo Massacre (1819) exemplifies government suppression of protests. The
government introduced repressive measures like the Six Acts (1819), which
restricted public meetings, newspapers, and radical speech to suppress dissent
in the wake of industrial unrest and demands for political reform.
o
The 1774 and 1795 Coercion Acts empowered
authorities to arrest, imprison, and suppress suspected revolutionaries or
radicals. Fear of revolutionary ideas
spreading from France led to government crackdowns on radical movements
advocating reform in Britain.
These acts allowed for the arrest of individuals
suspected of sedition without trial and gave authorities broad powers to
suppress dissent, often curtailing civil liberties.
o
The
Treasonable Practices Act (1795) and Seditious Meetings Act (1795): Criminalized
speech deemed treasonous and restricted public meetings of more than 50 people
without permission, targeting radical groups like the London Corresponding
Society.
o
Suspension
of Habeas Corpus (1794–1801, intermittently): Allowed
detention without trial, targeting reformers and suspected radicals.
Arrests of Radical
Pamphleteers & Journalists
During
the late 18th and early 19th centuries, radicals, journalists, and pamphleteers
advocating for political reform and civil liberties faced frequently arrests
and censorship.
1.
William Cobbett (1763–1835)
·
Cobbett was a prominent radical
journalist, politician, and reformer known for his advocacy of free speech,
land reform, and opposition to government censorship.
·
He founded "The
Political Register," a newspaper critical of government policies
and championing radical causes. Cobbett championed
the cause of rural workers and criticized government corruption, enclosure
policies, and military abuses.
·
In 1810, Cobbett was arrested for
seditious libel after publishing an article in the Political Register
condemning the flogging of militiamen who protested unfair pay deductions. He
was fined £1,000 and sentenced to two years in Newgate Prison. In 1817, facing
another potential arrest for his increasingly radical writings, he fled to the
United States to avoid prosecution
·
His writings and activism made
him a symbol of free speech and opposition to authoritarian policies during the
early 19th century.
The
government used laws like the Seditious Meetings Act and Printing
Press Laws to control the dissemination of radical ideas, often
arresting those who challenged authority.
·
Outcome: His imprisonment boosted his
popularity among reformers. After returning to Britain, he continued his
journalism and later became an MP following the 1832 Reform Act, advocating for
parliamentary reform.
2.
Thomas Paine (1737-1809):
Although an
American revolutionary, Paine was a British-born pamphleteer whose writings had
a profound impact in Britain. His work, particularly Rights of Man,
which defended the French Revolution and argued for democratic reform, was
considered highly seditious by the British government. In
1792, a warrant was issued for his arrest, but he had already fled to France.
He was tried in absentia for seditious libel and found
guilty.
·
An influential political theorist
and pamphleteer, Paine was a key figure in advocating for liberty,
republicanism, and revolution.
·
His most notable work, "Common
Sense" (1776), supported American independence, and "The
Rights of Man" (1791) defended republican ideas and criticized
monarchy.
·
Paine faced significant
persecution in Britain; he was imprisoned briefly in 1792 after publishing
"The Rights of Man," which was considered seditious by the
government.
·
His writings contributed to
radical thought and inspired later movements for political reform
3.
Richard Carlile (1790–1843)
·
Context: A radical publisher and
journalist, Carlile edited The Republican and published works advocating for
free speech, secularism, and republicanism, including Thomas Paine’s The Rights
of Man.
·
Arrest: Carlile faced multiple
arrests for seditious libel and blasphemy. In 1819, he was arrested for
publishing Paine’s works and other radical texts deemed seditious, resulting in
a six-year prison sentence in Dorchester Gaol. He was arrested again in the
1820s for his writings against the monarchy and established church.
·
Outcome: Carlile’s imprisonments
made him a martyr for free speech. His wife and shop assistants continued
publishing in his absence, sustaining his radical influence.
4.
Henry Hetherington (1792–1849)
·
A radical publisher and editor of
the Poor Man’s Guardian, Hetherington campaigned for working-class rights and
against the “taxes on knowledge” (stamp duties on newspapers).
·
Between 1831 and 1836,
Hetherington was arrested multiple times for seditious libel and publishing an
unstamped newspaper in defiance of the Stamp Act, which aimed to restrict cheap
press for the working class. He served several short prison sentences.
·
His persistence helped pressure
the government to reduce stamp duties in 1836, expanding access to newspapers
and advancing press freedom.
5.
James Watson (1799–1874)
·
A radical publisher and associate
of Richard Carlile, Watson was involved in distributing The Republican and
other radical pamphlets advocating reform and republicanism.
·
In the 1820s, Watson was arrested
for seditious libel and blasphemy for publishing radical texts, including those
by Carlile and Paine. He served multiple prison terms alongside Carlile.
·
Watson’s arrests reinforced the
radical publishing network’s resilience, contributing to the spread of
reformist ideas.
6.
John Cleave (c. 1790–1847)
·
A radical publisher and editor,
Cleave produced the Weekly Police Gazette and other unstamped newspapers,
advocating for Chartism and working-class rights.
·
In the 1830s, Cleave was arrested
for seditious libel and publishing unstamped papers in violation of the Stamp
Act, part of the government’s crackdown on the radical press.
·
Like Hetherington, Cleave’s
arrests fuelled the campaign against stamp duties, contributing to their
eventual reduction and the growth of the cheap press.
7.
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)
·
Mill was a philosopher,
economist, and political radical, renowned for his defense of individual
liberty, free speech, and democratic rights.
·
His influential work, "On Liberty"
(1859), argued vehemently for the importance of
free speech and against government censorship.
·
Mill was an advocate for women's
rights and radical reforms in democracy and social justice.
·
Although he faced opposition from
conservative circles, he was not imprisoned but remained a prominent voice for
civil liberties and reform during his life.
Other Radicals and
Persecuted Figures
·
W.
T. Stead (1849-1912): A pioneer of investigative
journalism, Stead was imprisoned for his work, although not for sedition. In
1885, his series "The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon" exposed child
prostitution. In a "sting" operation to prove his point, he bought a
girl to demonstrate how easily it could be done. He was subsequently arrested
and sentenced to three months in prison for his involvement in the transaction,
though his campaign led to the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
.jpg)
·
Thomas Hardy (1752-1832): and other
early 19th-century reformers also faced government suppression.
·
William Hone (1780-1842), a satirist
and publisher, was prosecuted for publishing satirical works criticizing
authorities and was convicted of blasphemy and libel before the law was
reformed.
Historical Context: In 18th and 19th-century Britain,
seditious libel laws were broadly used to silence critics of the monarchy,
government, or established church, particularly during turbulent periods like
the American Revolution, French Revolution, and the Chartist movement. The
Stamp Acts (1712 and later) also targeted radical publishers by taxing
newspapers, making them unaffordable for the working class.
Subversion vs. Sedition: Sedition typically
involved writings or actions inciting rebellion or disaffection, while
subversion implied broader efforts to undermine authority. Most arrests were
framed as seditious libel, a catch-all charge to suppress dissent.
Limitations: The list focuses on well-documented
British cases. Less prominent figures or those in colonial territories (e.g.,
India or Jamaica) may have faced similar charges, but specific names from the
18th and 19th centuries are less detailed in available sources. The cases above
reflect the most prominent examples tied to the radical press and reform
movements.
Banning of Trade Unions
and the Combination Acts
·
Many trade unionists and radical
writers, like George Loveless and members of the Tolpuddle
Martyrs (early 19th century), were imprisoned or persecuted for organizing and
advocating for workers' rights.
·
The Combination Acts
(1799 and 1800) specifically banned the formation of trade unions and
collective bargaining, aiming to suppress the growing influence of organized
labor.
·
These acts criminalized workers'
associations and strikes, viewing them as conspiracies against property and
order.
·
The acts led to widespread
arrests of trade unionists and activism, significantly curtailing workers'
rights to organize and protest.
·
The laws remained in force until
their repeal in 1824, after which trade unions gradually re-emerged, although
restrictions persisted in various forms afterward.
3. Chartist
Movement and Mid-19th Century (1830s–1840s)
The Chartist movement, advocating for democratic reforms like universal
male suffrage, faced government resistance amid economic hardship and political
unrest.
Key Restrictions:
·
Repression of Chartist Protests: Large Chartist
gatherings, such as the 1839 Newport Rising, were met with military force,
arrests, and transportation of leaders.
·
Censorship of Radical Press: Radical newspapers
faced prosecutions for seditious libel, limiting freedom of speech. The
Chartist movement saw numerous arrests of journalists and printers who
published their newspapers and pamphlets. These publications, advocating for
universal suffrage and other democratic rights, were often seen as seditious.
·
Restrictions on Assembly: Authorities often
banned or disrupted Chartist meetings, citing public order concerns.
The Chartists were branded as threats to the state, with leaders imprisoned
and protests suppressed, curtailing freedoms of speech and association. While
Chartism declined by the 1850s, its demands influenced later democratic
reforms, such as the Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884.
Mid-19th Century (Repressive Legislation):
·
The 19th century saw ongoing restrictions,
including laws against seditious meetings and radical activism, often justified
by maintaining order during periods of social upheaval and reform movements.
20th Century
1.
World War I & the Defence of
the Realm Act (1914–1918):
o
The Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) and other
wartime laws curtailed civil liberties. Freedom of speech was limited, the
press was censored, the government could ban public
gatherings deemed harmful to the war effort.
o
Government authorities could arrest individuals for
expressing dissent or criticism of the war effort.
o
Censorship of Anti-War Voices:
Pacifists, conscientious objectors, and socialist groups faced imprisonment for
speaking out against the war.
o
Suppression of Protests: Anti-war
meetings, such as those by the No-Conscription Fellowship, were disrupted or
banned.
2.
Interwar Period (1918–1939):
Authorities
used laws like the Public Order Acts to control demonstrations and suppress
radical political groups, especially during times of political unrest.
o
Public Order Act 1936: Passed after violent
clashes between Anti-Fascists and the Police, such as the Battle of Cable Street, it gave police powers to ban or
control marches and public meetings, limiting freedom to protest.
o
Sedition Laws: Used to prosecute communist and
socialist publications for advocating class struggle or anti-government
sentiments.
o
Surveillance of Radical Groups: Trade unions and
leftist organizations faced monitoring and infiltration, restricting freedom of
association.
The government prioritizing public
order over civil liberties. Restrictions eased after the immediate threats
subsided, but the Public Order Act remained a tool for controlling protests.
3.
World War II (1939–1945):
Similar
to WWI, restrictions on speech and dissent were intensified under wartime emergency
powers, including censorship and suppression of anti-war views.
o
Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939: Allowed
censorship, internment without trial (e.g., Regulation 18B targeting suspected
Nazi sympathizers), and bans on anti-war gatherings.
o
Censorship of Media: Newspapers and broadcasts were
heavily regulated to prevent anti-war sentiment or defeatism.
o
Suppression of Anti-War Groups: Pacifist
organizations, like the Peace Pledge Union, faced restrictions on public
activities.
o
Impact: Civil liberties were subordinated to
wartime needs, with widespread censorship and limits on protest and
association.
o
Resolution: Most emergency powers were repealed
post-war, but some surveillance practices persisted into the Cold War.
4. Cold War and Anti-Communist Measures (1945–1980s)
Fear of communism and
espionage during the Cold War led to restrictions on leftist groups and
individuals.
5.
Post-WWII to 1970s:
While
more democratic rights began to develop, certain protests, strikes, and radical
movements faced police suppression and legal restrictions, notably during the
1960s and early 1970s.
Key Restrictions:
o
Surveillance and Blacklisting: Trade
unionists, academics, and suspected communists were monitored by MI5, limiting
freedom of association.
o
Censorship of Media: The BBC and other
outlets faced pressure to avoid broadcasting communist or radical views.
o
Public Order Restrictions: Protests,
such as those by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), were occasionally
disrupted or monitored.
While overt censorship was less severe than during wartime, covert
surveillance and blacklisting chilled free speech and association for suspected
radicals.
6.
Journalists in Northern Ireland:
o
In the late 20th and early 21st
centuries, there have been arrests of journalists in Northern Ireland,
particularly those investigating police or state-related issues. For example, in 2018, journalists
Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey were arrested for alleged theft of a
confidential police report that they used in a documentary about the Loughin island
massacre. The arrests sparked outrage and were
seen as a threat to press freedom.
Late 20th
Century (1980s):
·
The Thatcher government implemented laws like the
Public Order Act 1986, which increased police powers to control protests and
demonstrations, sometimes leading to restrictions on public gatherings and
civil liberties.
Miners’ Strike and Industrial Unrest (1984–1985)
The miners’ strike saw
significant restrictions on protest and association.
Key Restrictions:
·
Police Powers: Police used aggressive
tactics, including roadblocks and mass arrests, to prevent picketing and limit
freedom of assembly.
·
Public Order Tactics: Flying pickets
and large protests were disrupted, with thousands arrested during the strike,
especially at Orgreave Coke Depot.
·
Media Bias and Censorship:
State-influenced media downplayed the strikers’ perspective, limiting their
freedom of expression.
·
Impact: The right to protest and
associate was curtailed through heavy-handed policing and legal measures,
weakening trade union power.
9. Post-9/11
Anti-Terrorism Laws (2000s–2010s)
The ‘war on terror’,
particularly after the 2005 London bombings, led to new laws restricting civil
liberties in the name of security.
Key Restrictions:
·
Terrorism Act 2000: Broadened
definitions of terrorism, allowing arrests for vague offenses like “glorifying
terrorism,” impacting free speech.
·
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
2001: Permitted indefinite detention of foreign nationals without charge,
undermining habeas corpus.
·
Public Order and Protest Restrictions:
Anti-war and anti-government protests faced increased police surveillance and
restrictions, such as under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005,
which limited protests near Parliament.
- Muslim
communities and activists faced disproportionate surveillance, and vague
laws chilled free speech and protest rights.
- Some
measures, like indefinite detention, were scaled back after legal
challenges, but surveillance and protest restrictions persisted.
21st
Century
Recent arrests
under anti-terror legislation:
·
In recent years, there has been a new trend
of arresting journalists under anti-terror legislation, particularly those
covering protest movements or sensitive geopolitical issues. The
National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has condemned the use of these laws to
"silence" reporters. Examples include
the arrests of journalists covering "Just Stop Oil" protests and
those reporting on the Israel-Palestine conflict. These cases, like that of Richard Medhurst in 2024, have
raised serious concerns about the state's use of broad powers to restrict
journalistic activity and stifle dissent.
Historically
there has been a consistent pattern of the state using legal mechanisms -from
seditious libel in the 17th and 18th centuries to modern-day anti-terror and
public order laws—to control and punish those who challenge its authority
through the written word.
10. Recent
Developments: Public Order and Online Speech (2010s–2025)
·
Public Order Act 2023: Expanded police
powers to restrict protests deemed disruptive, including “serious annoyance,”
impacting freedom to protest.
·
Online Safety Act 2023: Imposed regulations
on online platforms to remove “harmful” content, raising concerns about
censorship and free speech.
·
Arrests During Protests: High-profile arrests
during climate protests (e.g., Extinction Rebellion) and anti-government
demonstrations highlight ongoing tensions.
·
Surveillance of Activists: Increased use of
facial recognition and monitoring of protest groups limits freedom of
association.
British history is filled with instances of journalists and pamphleteers who were arrested for challenging the authority of the state and government. These arrests, often under charges of sedition, treason, or libel, reflect the ongoing tension between press freedom and state control. The methods of punishment evolved over the centuries, from public humiliation to imprisonment and fines.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please submit your comments below