1 October 2026

Open Letter to Zack Polanski – Congratulations on Declaring That You Are an Anti-Zionist – Now is the Time to Show That You Mean It

If You Oppose Zionism's Genocidal Ethnic Cleansing Project You Must Support the Zionism is Racism Motion & Oppose My Expulsion




Polanski Declares that he's an anti-Zionist at the Board Of Deputies Hustings

Dear Zack,

Your clear and explicit declaration at the Board of Deputies hustings that you are an anti-Zionist is to be welcomed. I unreservedly support your candidature at the forthcoming Holborn & St. Pancras by-election and I hope that you are the successor to the detested war criminal Keir Starmer who slithered away like the snake he is.

Whereas I supported George Galloway at the Rochdale by-election in 2024 I am firmly opposed to his divisive and reactionary candidacy in this election.

Polanski opposes 'divisive' Zionism is Racism motion

However I am also aware that after winning the leadership of the Green Party [GP] so decisively last year, you equivocated on the question of Zionism and appeased the old Green Establishment of Caroline Lucas and co. So the question is whether you are prepared to break with the GP's support for NATO and imperialism?

The Daily Mail's Proprietor Viscount Rothermere waxed lyrical about the 'youthfulness' and dynamism of the Nazis

In your Zeteo interview you stated that ‘Zionism means different things to different people.’ But that is true of any ideology. Do you think that the Nazis came to power promising to wipe out all Jews? On the contrary they played down anti-Semitism.

The Nazis were seen as a vigorous, young movement that was going to do away with the old corrupt politicians and abolish unemployment. People supported them not because of anti-Semitism but their economic promises and anti-communism.

South Africa had petty apartheid, which Israel didn't have until the advent of colonisation of the West Bank where there are now roads for Jews only - they don't have signs but that is the reality

Apartheid in South Africa was not defended by its supporters as a way of exploiting and oppressing Black people but as "separate development". The Nationalists argued that South Africa was not one nation, but a multitude of ‘nations’ (Afrikaners, English-speaking whites and various Black ethnic groups).

The Apartheid leaders claimed that forcing different cultures to integrate would lead to friction and that each group should live independently within its own territory. This is no different to what Zionism argues. Jews need their own state.

Israeli Labor leaders Ben-Gurion & Golda Meir. Ben-Gurion was the architect of the Nakba & Gold Meir was famous for saying that 'It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist,” 

The Israeli Labor Party’s support for a two state solution was posited on the need to separate Jews from Palestinians in order to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel. Only then could Israel be both democratic and Jewish. In the words of Israel’s main opposition leader, Yair Lapid:

My principle says maximum Jews on maximum land with maximum security and with minimum Palestinians.

You went on to say that what the present Israeli government is doing is clearly racist thus implying that previous Israeli Labor governments weren’t racist. But this is not true. There is nothing that Netanyahu and Likud have done that the Labour Zionists didn’t do before them. The right-wing Zionists are just more honest.

The Nakba wasn’t organised by the Revisionists but the Labour Zionists. It was primarily the ‘left’ Zionist militias, Haganah and Palmach, who were responsible for the massacres and forcible expulsion of Palestinians in 1947/8 and throughout the 1950s.

The Apartheid structure of the Israeli state, with its confiscation of Arab land and apartheid legislation like the Absentee Property Law was created by Labour not Likud. The concept of ‘Jewish’ Labour, i.e. violently picketing Jewish employers who employed Arabs was a Labour Zionist campaign in the 1920s and 30s.

The expansion of Israel into the West Bank was under the Labour Zionists. The first settlements were created under the Israeli Labor Party and indeed the founders of the Greater Israel movement were stalwarts of the Labour Zionist movement like Yitzhak Tabenkin, Israel Galili and Yigal Allon. [See Between Land and State – ‘Greater Land of Israel’ according to Tabenkin and the United Kibbutz Movement]

Yes many Jews see Israel as a refuge from anti-Semitism but as the Jews of Argentina, 3,000 of whom were murdered, found out in the 1970s, the Israeli state will offer no protection against an anti-Jewish regime with which it is on friendly terms and doing business with the Israeli state. Israel preferred a billion dollar trade with a neo-Nazi Junta to saving Argentinian Jews from the torture chambers.

Just as in 1920 thousands of Ukrainian Jews fleeing the pogroms were turned away by the Zionists who pressurised the British not to admit them.

Zionism is not what is in the head of some fragrant young Zionist but what Zionism does. Jewish or Zionist justifications for Zionism are about as valid as the defence of Apartheid in South Africa by its supporters.

Zionism is not a Jewish but a Christian idea. Zionism is the ideology of the Israeli state. It explains why Palestinian children are called ‘little snakes’ by former Israeli 'Justice Minister' Ayelet Shaked, legitimate targets for IDF snipers. Zionism, in all its flavours is first and foremost a movement of Jewish Supremacy, ethnic cleansing and now genocide.

Yes Zionism has had many different strands and currents but all of them were united on the need for a Jewish Supremacist state.

Supporters of South African Apartheid were divided between Jan Smuts and DaniĆ«l Malan. Both however agreed on White Supremacism. The Nazi party too was divided between Hitler and the ‘left’ represented by Gregor and Otto Strasser. However both wings agreed on anti-Semitism.

One of your objections to the ZIR motion was ‘safeguarding Jewish people’. This is wrong. Supporting Palestinians and opposing Zionism does not threaten Jewish safety. If anything increases anti-Semitism it is the Zionist claim that all Jews support the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

If some Jewish Greens are Zionists then far more are anti-Zionist. If you are a Zionist then you are supporting a racist, apartheid state. Why would such a person want to be in the GP?

Jewish people are not under attack, their homes are not being bombed, their children killed, their doctors tortured and raped to death. When the question of Palestine is raised it has nothing to do with Jews. To imply that support for Palestinians threatens the safety of Jews is to buy into the Zionist narrative. Israel is not a ‘Jewish’ state other than in a racial supremacist sense.

Those Jews at the Board of Deputies hustings who shouted that there is no genocide were no different from neo-Nazi holocaust deniers. They are racist monsters and should be treated as such.

The Jewish racists who heckled you would change their tune if it was 20,000 Jewish children who had been murdered. Jewish people in Britain are not experiencing anti-Semitism but a reaction to the carnage most of them support.

Allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ are nothing more than a rationale to support the Zionist agenda. Jews in Britain who declare they are Zionists are holding hands with the far-right and people like Tommy Robinson, a self-declared Zionist.

You raised the red herring about someone who opposes genocide & apartheid but is a member of a Zionist synagogue. You said they should not be treated differently or made to feel unwelcome. I agree. People who are members of Zionist synagogues should not be held responsible for the politics of their synagogue if they oppose Zionism.

Your second objection was about supporting a single Palestinian state. You even said that there was ‘something imperialist about this’. This is untrue. Palestine today is already one state. An apartheid state. There is no possibility of a two state solution nor is it desirable since it would leave an apartheid Jewish state in place. What is required is that there are equal rights for all the inhabitants of that state. What is imperialist about equal rights?

If you ask any Palestinian whether they would prefer one state or two states the overwhelming majority opt for the former. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation only adopted support for 2 states because they despaired of achieving a single state. Today it is clear to all that, in the words of B’tselem, Israel’s main human rights organisation, Israel is a

regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid

In 1919 Chaim Weizmann, later to become Israel’s first President, stated that a Jewish state would be ‘as Jewish as England was English.’ In other words its indigenous population would have no place.

A Jewish ethno-nationalist state cannot be any other than a racist, apartheid state. By definition it is a state that privileges Jews.

Crispin Flintoff Interviews Chris Williamson and Natalie Strecker about Zack Polanski

I also wish to raise my expulsion from the GP, which you have kept quiet about. It was planned and executed by a small group on the Green Party Council [GPC] led by Laura Eccott and supported by Green supporters of Zionism and genocide like Elise Benjamin. It was agreed by the narrowest of margins 7-6.

The Racism of Elise Benjamin – the Green Party’s leading Zionist

According to Benjamin the Nakba is ‘Iran backed propaganda’ the Palestinians being too stupid to have thought of it themselves. She also repeats the fable of an Israeli ‘offer’ to allow the Palestinian refugees to return. Wikipedia’s 1949 Lausanne Conference dispels this nonsense. There was an ‘offer’ to accept 100,000 refugees but it was quickly withdrawn and in return Israel wanted a portion of southern Lebanon and other territories

 

Benjamin fawns over a White Israeli woman, Izabella Gandlin who was apparently killed by Palestinians (we will never know because it is likely that most Israelis who died on October 7 were victims of the Hannibal Directive. Benjamin never profiles Palestinian children or doctors like Dr Abu Safia who to this day is imprisoned and tortured by Israel. Indeed not once has Benjamin said anything about the genocide, starvation and torture.

 

In response to an article about Israel’s sexual assault on Palestinian girls, Benjamin reaches for another Zionist fabrication about Hamas intercepting aid and abusing Palestinian women. She also only has words for the fake allegations of mass rape on October 7, not the documented and videod IDF rape of Palestinians.

On April 16 I was suspended. The complainant was allowed to remain anonymous contrary to GP policy. Just 11 words justified my suspension: ‘Documented history of antisemitism, including court decisions and recent terrorism charges’

On May 7 I was expelled, the reasons being that I had:

  1.           ‘displayed no contrition or regret (or remorse)’ for ‘the repeated                instances of anti-Semitism that led to TG’s suspension.’
  2.         That I had had the audacity to publicly criticise those who had                   engineered my expulsion.   

My expulsion was based on a series of lies. ‘Repeated Anti-Semitism’ was not a reason for my suspension so how could I show contrition? If the GP wishes to expel anyone then it should be those who make false allegations of anti-Semitism - Elise Benjamin, Laura Eccott and Andrei Frieze. It is the Green racists not the Green anti-racists who should be expelled.

I was also suspended for the ‘crime’ of being charged with ‘terrorism’. Thousands of people face ‘terrorism’ charges today for supporting Palestine Action. The most recent Home Office statistics reveal that the average ‘terrorist’ is no longer a 31 year old male but a 59 year old White woman.

The GPC assumed that being charged ‘terrorism’ meant that I was guilty. GPC acted contrary to one of the most basic principles of law, the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. It is enshrined in Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. I completely understand why Laura Eccott and Elise Benjamin prefer Israeli ‘justice’, where you are assumed to be guilty and gaoled without even the pretence of a trial (if you are a Palestinian).

On August 18 I went on trial under the Terrorism Act 2000. It ended on August 21 when the jury unanimously acquitted me after just 2 hours. They accepted that what was at stake was freedom of speech not terrorism. I was fortunate that the jury did not consist of members of Green Party Council.

My closing speech to the jury was described by the right-wing Libertarian Alliance as ‘maybe the most important speech made this century in an English court of law’. I explained why the Terrorism Act 2000 was not about terrorism but about suppressing free speech. It is something that members of GPC might take the time to acquaint themselves with.

It is bad enough that the British state accuses Palestine activists and protesters against the banning of Palestine Action of terrorism. What is grotesque is the fact that the GPC gave their support to those accusations.

Zionism is a reflection of the European racism that led to the Holocaust. The Palestinians are the Jews of Israel. Christian Zionism predated Jewish Zionism by 4 centuries. It believed in the idea of a ‘Jewish return to Palestine’ an anti-Semitic idea which assumed that Jews do not belong where they live.

44% of young British Jews now declare that they are anti-Zionist or non-Zionist. The GP no longer needs to walk in fear of the ‘anti-Semitism’ scarecrow. The GP needs to abandon support for Zionism and become an anti-racist and anti-imperialist party.

The GP has the most pro-Palestinian policy of any political party yet it is distrusted by Palestine solidarity supporters because its main interest lies in harvesting the votes of those opposed to genocide rather than putting its policies into practice.

The IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism is still GP policy and you have said nothing about this. Recently New South Wales Supreme Court Judge Desmond Fagan ruled that the IHRA:

propounds a concept different from that which ‘antisemitism’ has long been understood to describe and appropriates that word to the novel concept.... The [purpose of IHRA] is to graft onto the community’s abhorrence of antisemitism a parasitic rejection of protest against Israel.

The GP Establishment has mobilised against the Zionism is Racism motion and you Zack have equivocated. It is time for you to come out in its support now you are an anti-Zionist.

James Baldwin

The West’s support for Israel has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Jews are the moral alibi for a racist state guarding Western interests in the Arab East.  As James Baldwin remarked:

But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests.

The real problem is the GP’s fear of breaking with the foreign policy consensus between Labour and the Tories. The question is whether you want to break from that or adapt to it.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein

Polanski opposes 'divisive' Zionism is Racism motion

Green leader Zack Polanski describes Zionism as racism

Polanski sparks anger after declaring himself ‘anti-Zionist’ at packed communal hustings

Israel lobby group CAA threatens Greens over ‘Zionism is racism’ motion

WATCH: Zionists heckle Polanski even though he’s gone soft on anti-Zionism


21 September 2026

The Terrorism Acts Are Not About Terrorism But About Criminalising Support for Anti-Colonial Resistance

 Freedom of Speech is a Luxury That Burnham, like Starmer, is Willing to Sacrifice in the Drive to War - Juries Are Our Last Line of the Defence of Freedom

On Tuesday evening at 7 pm Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity Campaign will hold a meeting at the Friends Meeting House in Ship Street, Brighton.

The theme is the silencing of Palestinian advocacy and I will be one of four speakers – the others include Sukaina Rajwani, whose daughter Fatima was sentenced to almost 6 years in prison by Injustice Jeremy Johnson because he added on a ‘terrorism’ connection to a minor criminal damage conviction. This is an injustice that has to be rectified. If a judge is going to sentence anyone for terrorism then a jury must first convict them of terrorism.

Lubna Speitan, who is spearheading the Zionism is Racism motion at the Green Party conference is also speaking as is  Stephen Kapos, a child survivor of the Hungarian holocaust.

It is remarkable. No Zionist supporter of genocide in Gaza has been prosecuted for supporting Genocide in Gaza. Only the opponents of genocide have been arrested and imprisoned. Genocide is the supreme crime. It is a crime under the International Criminal Court Act 2001 yet the Police initially refused even to investigate British citizens who went to fight in the IDF. Let alone those who fund the genocide.

Instead the Police have directed all their energies at supporters of the Palestinians. They have deployed the ‘anti-Semitism’ weapon in the same way as the Zionists. A nearby synagogue was the pretext for the Met banning a demonstration starting near the BBC. On October 4, 2024 I was arrested for making a speech comparing the Israeli state to Nazi Germany. Later they dropped the charges and I’m presently suing them.

All of this should be no surprise because Britain has a military alliance with the Israeli state and has provided arms and intelligence to them. Despite Ed Miliband’s speech in Parliament condemning Jewish terrorists on the West Bank nothing has changed. All the actions proposed are, his officials reassured the Americans, ‘symbolic’.

The reasons are simple. Britain has, since 1956, been aligned with US Imperialism. Israel is the operative arm and attack dog of the United States in the Middle East. The European Union and Germany have also given full throated support to the Genocide and the war against Iran.

The behaviour of the German state is particularly vile given their record. Having participated in or initiated four genocides – the Maji Maji, Herero/Nama, Armenian and Nazi holocaust, Germany is eager to support Israel’s holocaust in Gaza in order to come to terms with its own record.

What is even more remarkable is that whereas public opinion, in Britain, Europe and the United States has turned decisively against Israel, including in Germany, the elites have been consistent in their support for Zionism and Israel.

\The plaque on the walls of the Old Bailey which commemorates the 1670 Bushell's case in which a Jury successfully defied a Judges  Attempt to Make Them Convict Two Preachers

All of this is no accident. Blair and Straw planned it that way in the Terrorism Act 2000. That was why s.1 of the Act defines terrorism in terms of ‘serious damage’ to property, health and safety and attacking electronic systems.

What Chamberlain J called the ‘colloquial’ definition of Terrorism bears no relationship to s.1 of the Terrorism Act.

“An action done for the purposes set out in s. 1(1)(b) and (c) constitutes terrorism if it involves serious damage to property even if it does not involve violence against any person or endanger life or create a risk to health or safety… [T]his definition of ‘terrorism’ makes the statutory concept wider than the colloquial meaning of the word.”

I chose 5 dictionary definitions of terrorism – none of them mentioned property, health and safety or electronic systems. All of them mentioned violence and terror against people.

The Cambridge Dictionary definition of terrorism is ‘violent action or threats designed to cause fear among ordinary people, in order to achieve political aims.’

The Miriam Webster definition of terrorism is ‘the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion’

The Brittanica Dictionary definition of terrorism is ‘the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal’.The dictionary.com definition of terrorism is ‘the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.'

The Oxford Reference Definition is ‘The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear.

In his 2014 Report David Anderson, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism legislation  wrote about

the extraordinarily broad definition of terrorism under UK law, and the heavy reliance that is placed on the wise exercise of discretions by Ministers, prosecutors and police.

It was Conservative MP Douglas Hogg who warned in the parliamentary debate in 2000 on the Terrorism Act that

By extending the definition of terrorism, we put at risk our long tradition of giving sanctuary to people who are fighting oppressive regimes abroad. I do not want protesters to be classified as terrorists.

The qualms of Douglas Hogg, who was no liberal, were disregarded by Blair and Straw just as half a century later they would be disregarded by Starmer and Yvette Cooper when proscribing Palestine Action.

Jack Straw simply lied when reassuring Alan Simpson MP:

people supporting one or another of the international causes he cites will not even remotely come under the Bill.... However, to think that the Bill will restrict the right of peaceful protest, demonstration and campaigning is wholly erroneous.

Simon Hughes of the Lib Dems made a similar point.

...the Bill's definition sweeps in not only people who attack property for an environmental objective or for objectives connected with other general issues such as animal rights, but people who support organisations outside Governments in countries that are not democratic. All those people would now be included in the definition. 

Jeremy Corbyn pointed out that

Calling your opponents ‘terrorists’ is a familiar tactic of repressive states and it was something that New |Labour was about to introduce in this country.

Jack Straw said that ‘an organisation becomes a candidate for proscription only if it is concerned in terrorism’ and what was ‘terrorism’? Well that was the whole point. By redefining terrorism the British State could include within its remit just about any protest group that annoyed them.

New Labour politicians knew that they could rely on lying and servile British judges to aid and abet them. And no group of judges is more dishonest or servile than the present Court of Appeal under Liar Lady Justice Sue Carr, a blue stocking who decided to romanticise the Suffragettes:

Palestine Action characterises itself as a non-violent “direct action protest group” which follows in the footsteps of the suffragettes, and the campaigns against apartheid and the Iraq war.

It was not accurate for Ms Ammori to paint Palestine Action as an “ordinary protest group engaged in activities that fall within the well-established tradition of peaceful protest”.  

Palestine Action’s activities are planned and undertaken secretly with the objective of avoiding detection ... 

Secondly, the members of Palestine Action do not vouch their sincerity by accepting the penalties imposed by the law. Thirdly, on a fair analysis, Palestine Action has little or nothing in common with the suffragettes or the anti-apartheid or Iran War protest groups.   

The whole premise of Palestine Action is to cause damage to property belonging to Elbit and other companies trading lawfully in the United Kingdom. (my emphasis)

It is, nonetheless, a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism. It is not, as it claims, a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes operating transparently in the open. It is a covert organisation that operates using secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy the property of third parties. Palestine Action’s activities have caused injury as well as property damage.

Palestine Action was classed as a violent terrorist organisation, operating covertly unlike the genteel folk of the Suffragettes. Yet the opposite was the case.

The National Scot was the only national paper to cover my acquittal - if I had been convicted no doubt all of them would have highlighted it

The suffragettes were anything but peaceful. From 1912-14, they openly embarked on a terror campaign, bombing and burning their way across the country. The Suffragettes certainly didn’t plan their arson or bombing campaigns in open meetings!

Below are just a few examples of the peaceful, ‘transparent’ Suffragettes that Liar Lady Carr referred to:

Bombings and High-Profile Arson

The campaign saw the widespread deployment of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and petrol-fueled fires.

·         David Lloyd George’s House (1913): A bomb exploded at a house under construction for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Walton-on-the-Hill.

·         Theatre Royal, Dublin (1912): Suffragettes deployed several bombs and used petrol to set fire to the theatre during a live performance attended by Prime Minister H.H. Asquith.

·         Westminster Abbey (1914): A bomb was detonated inside the historic abbey, damaging the Coronation Chair.

·         Kew Gardens Tea Pavilion (1913): The famous tea pavilion was entirely destroyed by arson. Weeks prior, suffragettes smashed orchid houses and destroyed rare plants.

·         The Home Office (1912): A powerful bomb was discovered and safely defused in Home Secretary Reginald McKenna's office.

·         Holloway Prison: A bomb was detonated outside the walls of the facility holding imprisoned suffragettes.

·         Bombs exploded at Edinburgh's Royal Observatory, Rosslyn Chapel, St. Paul's Cathedral, train stations (like Oxted and Westbourne Park), and various public infrastructure sites

Assaults, Vandalism, and Infrastructure Sabotage

·         Assassination Attempt on the Prime Minister: In July 1912, a suffragette threw a hatchet at Prime Minister Asquith's carriage. It missed him but struck and injured Irish nationalist MP John Redmond.

·         Nationwide Postal Sabotage (1912–1914): Suffragettes launched a systemic campaign targeting public pillar boxes. They poured ink, corrosive acids, and liquid phosphorus into postboxes to destroy mail, occasionally leaving postal workers and police officers with chemical burns.

·         Art Destruction (1914): Activist Mary Richardson entered the National Gallery and used a meat cleaver to slash Diego VelĆ”zquez’s famous painting, the "Rokeby Venus," protesting the re-arrest of Emmeline Pankhurst.

In their attempts to destroy the direction action movement, judges lie. When Burnham and Starmer say there is no Genocide in Gaza they lie. Lying is an integral part of the system we live in. When the Court of Appeal says that making quadcopters to murder civilians is a ‘lawful business’ they lie.

The British state has been desperate to criminalise activists in Palestine Action and those who are prominent in the Palestine solidarity movement. That is why the Police raided my home on December 20 on a trumped up charge of ‘inviting support’ for Hamas, after 9 complaints from individual Zionists including the obsessive Heidi Bachram.

The Terrorism Act 2000 and in particular s.12 has been wheeled out in order to attack freedom of speech on Palestine. To my knowledge at least 7 people, probably more, have been prosecuted under the Act.

The only problem for the State is that juries have been remarkably unwilling to convict people for exercising their right to freedom of speech.

Between October 7 2023 and October 7, 2024 the Crown Prosecution Service initiated 11 prosecutions under s.12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000. 

Of those we know about Kwabena Devonish, Sarah Cotte, Tony Greenstein and Natalie Strecker were acquitted and two  Hanin Barghouthi and Majid Freeman had hung juries.

There were also the "Paraglider Imagery" Appeals (Metropolitan Police / London Magistrates). Three women (Heba Alhayek, Pauline Ankunda, and Noimutu Olayinka Saka) were convicted at Westminster Magistrates in early 2024 of a terrorism offense for displaying images of paragliders at a protest shortly after October 7. They all received conditional discharges.

Following structural challenges regarding intent and the definition of symbolic support, multiple similar cases involving protest imagery have been quietly dropped by the CPS or successfully appealed due to the high legal threshold required by the Supreme Court's R v ABJ precedent.

It is interesting to look at the reaction of the Zionists to my acquittal. The non-Jewish Zionist obsessive, Heidi Bachram, reacted ‘furiously’ saying it was ‘a huge failure of the legal system to protect the population from extremism and support for terrorism.’ Translated means protecting Heidi from free speech.

Both Heidi and another Zionist, Crepidarian argued that I should have been prosecuted under s.12(1A) which criminalises ‘expressing an opinion or belief supportive of a proscribed organisation’ and believe the CPS chose the wrong charge. This may comfort them because you have to be reckless in what you are doing. However the Prosecution still have to prove intent and in any case my closing speech to the jury was based on the right of the Palestinians to resist the occupiers, so this is simply an exercise in wishful thinking.

The point I made in my first blog on my acquittal is still valid. It is a mistake simply to deal with such charges legally without ensuring that the jury understands the context. It is because lawyers find it difficult to provide the political context when judges remove such defences that where possible defendants should consider taking the final speech and certainly ensure that via their cross-examination that jury know the whole case and not simply that which the judiciary want the jury to know.

The role of the judge is to try and pull the wool over the jury’s eyes which was why I emphasised that whereas the judge deals with the law, the jury is there to ensure justice.

The Only Thing of Interest in My Trial was Gary Lineker Retweeting My After the Verdict Speech

The Terrorism Act 2000 is also a racist act. Many migrants in this country support liberation or resistance organisations in their countries of origin. Yet Britain proscribes many such groups because our state is friends with the dictators who run such a state.

This is particularly true in the case of the Kurds of Turkey. The PKK Kurdish Workers Party is proscribed as a ‘terrorist’ organisation because we are friends with Turkey’s semi-fascist dictator, Recip Erdogan. It is a national liberation movement which most Kurds in this country support.

As David Anderson, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism wrote in his 2012 Report on Terrorism Legislation:

the current law allows members of any nationalist or separatist group to be turned into terrorists by virtue of their participation in a lawful armed conflict, however great the provocation and however odious the regime which they have attacked.

As Anderson also wrote in his 2012 Report there was

‘a case for shrinking the definition of terrorism... the definition is so broad as to criminalise certain acts carried out overseas that constitute lawful hostilities under international humanitarian law. Examples include UN-sanctioned use of force and acts of violent rebellion against oppressive governments, even where such acts target only military objectives and minimise civilian casualties.

Anderson also wrote in his Report that:

As presently drafted, the definition is so broad as to criminalise certain acts carried out overseas that constitute lawful hostilities under international humanitarian law.... the current law allows members of any nationalist or separatist group to be turned into terrorists by virtue of their participation in a lawful armed conflict, however great the provocation and however odious the regime which they have attacked.

Tony Greenstein

See: Greg Hadfield The most important half-hour of my life

The British state has lost the argument, even as it rigs the trials of genocide opponents Jonathan Cook

How Britain Tried To Rig the Trial of a Genocide Opponent – and Lost -  antiwar.com

The jury said not guilty.The papers reported Gary Lineker.