Palestine Action Victory Vindicates Direct Action & Breaking Genocidal & Immoral Laws

We Have to Remain Vigilant & Continue the Protests - the Court of Appeal under Reactionary ‘Justice’ Lady Carr May Reverse the Decision

Palestine Action co-founder: 'Today is just an incredible victory'

The decision of the High Court to declare that the proscription of Palestine Action as a ‘terrorist’ group is unlawful is a sweet victory. It is made even sweeter by the dishonesty and hypocrisy of this corrupt ‘Labour’ government which prefers paedophiles to anti-genocide activists. 

However we should not be complacent. The decision is extremely problematic. The arguments that the three judges – Dames Victoria Sharp & Karen Steyn & Jonathan Swift - the most reactionary, pro-Zionist and security minded of the High Court, based their decision on, are extremely feeble and in places obscure and contradictory. 

In paragraph 29 of the judgement they argue that Palestine Action is a violent group.

In paragraph 34 they repeat the lie, which the jury did not uphold, regarding the Bristol attack on Elbit, that 

during the attack two responding police officers and a security guard were assaulted and suffered injuries. One police officer had been assaulted with a sledgehammer and sustained a serious back injury

Contrary to the misinformation of the prostitute press, the police officer in question did not suffer a serious back injury. That these reactionary bewigged fools got this wrong suggests that this judgment may not last very long.  

In paras. 43 and 45 they cite with approval the unanimous view of the Proscription Review Group that ‘the discretionary considerations weigh in favour of proscription’ and that Palestine Action was a terrorist group. 

In para. 57 these judges rejected the proposition that 

Palestine Action victory

fairness required the Home Secretary to give Palestine Action notice that she was minded to exercise her power to proscribe, to provide such reasons as she could, and to permit Palestine Action to have the opportunity to make representations.

This despite the fact that the Israeli Embassy and Elbit had been consulted. In para 88 the court found that:

The submission for the claimant has emphasised that only three of Palestine Action’s many actions were assessed to amount to acts of terrorism. That is so, but we are satisfied the Home Secretary was entitled to attach significant weight to any act occurring in the United Kingdom that came within the section 1 definition of terrorism.

We should bear in mind that the ‘definition of terrorism’ in the Terrorism Act 2000 is so wide that you could drive a coach and horses through it. Virtually any group could be proscribed if the government was set on it. The definition has been repeatedly criticized, not least by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation David Anderson QC who spoke of ‘the extreme breadth of the definition of terrorism in UK law.’ 

Anderson went on to point out (3.2(e)) in his 2011 Report that

Actions may constitute terrorism even when they might otherwise constitute lawful hostilities under international humanitarian law (e.g. acts of violent rebellion against oppressive governments, even where targeting only military objectives and minimising civilian casualties). 

Anderson observed (3.5) that:

The most striking feature of the TA 2000 definition is the fact that terrorist action is ―equally criminal whether it is intended to take place in the UK or elsewhere‖. This far exceeds the limited extraterritorial effect required by the EU Framework Decision and by the 16 international conventions and protocols that were concluded between 1963 and 2005 to address specific activities linked to terrorism. The effect is to extend the label of terrorism to violent actions directed against any regime in the world, however unsavoury or opposed to UK interests that regime may be, and however praiseworthy the objective of the ‘terrorists’ may appear.

In 3.9 Anderson recommended ‘shrinking the definition of terrorism’

As presently drafted, 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. The broad criminalisation could have implications also for extradition, given that by UNSCR 1373 (2001) para 3(g), claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists.

The High Court found that:

It is undeniable that the consequences of proscription are as described in the documents, are designed to disrupt proscribed organisations, and in the present case would have that effect on Palestine Action. But so far as concerns the lawful application of the Home Secretary’s policy on the use of the discretion to proscribe, that is not a relevant consideration. That is so notwithstanding that on a proper construction of the policy the Home Secretary does have latitude to decide for herself which matters are appropriate “other factors”

Paragraph 90 is all but incomprehensible. 

The conclusion in para. 95 that

The consequence and conclusion of this point is that, notwithstanding the latitude that the policy provides, the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was not consistent with her policy. The closed material does not affect our conclusion on this ground.

Is inexplicable. The arguments used are torturous. 

Nowhere in their judgment do the 3 judges even mention the fact that Palestine Action is a direct action not a terrorist group because they unquestioningly adopt the definition of terrorism as applying to non-terrorist groups (in the common understanding of the term). 

As regards the right to freedom of speech and association under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights they find in para. 106 that offences under sections 12(1), 1A and 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 ‘comprise a very significant interference with the right to free speech.’ This is not in line with previous Court of Appeal decisions in for example Chaudry. 

In para. 109 the High Court argues that what needs to be justified is not Palestine Action’s destruction of property. 

Rather, what needs to be justified is the restriction on actions comprising peaceful protest, consistent with Convention rights, under the Palestine Action banner.

On the face of it the statement in para. 114 that

Freedom of political debate, which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society, also includes the free expression by prohibited organisations of their views, provided that these do not contain public incitement to commit terrorist offences, or condone the use of violence

seems contrary to existing judicial interpretations of case law. It will be interesting to see if this is upheld by the Court of Appeal. I suspect it won’t be upheld. 

Likewise the statement in para. 115 that 

this case is primarily concerned with the rights of individuals who have not acted unlawfully either before or since proscription, who would have wanted to express support for and associate with Palestine Action – whose stated aim is “to stop genocide and other atrocity crimes by causing disruption to corporate actors who aid, abet, facilitate and profit from those crimes” – and who wished to engage in peaceful protests under the banner of Palestine Action, but are stopped from doing so. It cannot sensibly be said that such persons are seeking to deflect the article 10 and 11 rights from their real purpose by employing them for ends contrary to Convention values. Nor could that be suggested in respect of others, such as journalists, academics and civil society organisations who are conscientiously seeking to abide by the law, and whose rights are impacted. The Home Secretary’s article 17 submission fails.

This too is novel. The whole point of proscription has previously been that all the activities of proscribed groups are forbidden.

Yet in para. 118 the High Court goes on to say of the demonstrations that followed the proscription that:

Immediately following the proscription decision there were large protests. More than 2,000 people at these protests were arrested, primarily on suspicion of committing the offence under section 13 of the 2000 Act. The vast majority of those arrested had chosen to hold signs which read, “I oppose Genocide, I support Palestine Action”. We attach little weight to this when it comes to assessing the extent of the interference with Convention rights in this case. All those holding such signs either did or ought to have realised that what they were doing was showing support for Palestine Action. It was or ought to have been obvious to all concerned that such “carefully worded” placards were carefully worded only to the extent of sending the message that the person holding the placard was expressing support for Palestine Action.

This appears to contradict the previous paragraphs of the judgement. And likewise in paras. 123 and 124 the court declares, in respect of journalists, academics and campaigning groups that the pressure to self censor and 

the interference with article 10 and 11 rights is very significant. Nevertheless, there is a general correlation between the proscription of Palestine Action and the interference insofar as the adverse impacts are generally limited to those who have or would support Palestine Action and do not have any widespread or general impact on expressions of support for the general Palestinian cause.

Yet in para. 125 the High Court finds that ‘the interference with Convention rights consequent on proscription is not prescribed by law.’ 

In para. 136, as part of its ‘balancing assessment’ the court finds that

We do not consider that the proscription of Palestine Action is likely to result in any general impact on expressions of support for the Palestinian cause or even opposition to Elbit. This provides some support for a conclusion that the proscription was proportionate.

This despite the police’s repeated interpretation of proscription as doing exactly this. 

In paras. 137 and 138 the court attacks Palestine Action as a violent, terrorist organization. 

In paras. 141 and 142 the court rejects the view of the UN Special Raporteur 

that a “consensus” existed in international law to the effect that the actions of Palestine Action assessed as amounting to terrorism within the definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act did not in fact amount to terrorism.

The two grounds on which the application succeeded were

Ground 6: that the decision to seek the Order proscribing Palestine Action was made by the Home Secretary in breach of her own policy on when she would exercise her discretion to seek an order proscribing an organisation; and

Ground 2: that the decision to seek proscription was contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 (the HRA) because it amounted to an unjustified interference with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) under article 10 of the Convention, to freedom of expression and under article 11 of the Convention, to freedom of association and peaceful assembly; and further, amounted to discrimination contrary to article 14 of the Convention.

In para. 149 the High Court holds that Ground 6 is the strongest yet it makes it clear that the Home Secretary can simply rewrite the policy and then decide to proscribe Palestine Action without considering the usefulness of the criminal sanctions that result. 

Nonetheless the deproscription of Palestine Action is welcome although the Court resiled from implementing it immediately. The question is why. If the proscription is unlawful why not quash it immediately? 

It is difficult to argue with Craig Murray’s ‘Postpone the Celebrations’ blog article. He argues that these three, right-wing judges have deliberately set up their judgement to fail. This is possible. The judgement overall, finding that Palestine Action is a violent, terrorist group, does not make one optimistic. 

The irony is that on the very day that Yvette Cooper proposed proscribing Palestine Action she was dressed in the colours of the Suffragettes. Never was there a more shameless hypocrite. If any group could be described as 'terrorists' it was the Suffragettes. But Cooper was happy to bask in their reflected glory. 

We should consider the circumstances surrounding this case. At the very last minute Judge Chamberlain, who was relatively liberal, was replaced by three right-wing, security minded judges. This was despite Chamberlain having stated that he would be in charge of the case. 

The Ministry of Justice intervened to get Chamberlain replaced and Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division obliged. However this was so ham fisted that they found themselves in a dilemma. They could not be seen to override both Chamberlain’s original referral and the decision of the Court of Appeal to extend the grounds of the judicial review application. 

In other words this judgement is a face-saving exercise and the three judges scrabbled to find reasons to oppose the proscription whilst producing an error ridden ruling. 

What matters though is what the Palestine solidarity movement does. We cannot afford to rely on the whims of reactionary ruling class judges who are playing word games. 

The proscription of Palestine Action is still operating. The Metropolitan Police have stated that they aren’t going to arrest people now but merely take their details down for possible future prosecutions but all that that will do is delay future prosecutions. 

It is essential that we act as if there had not been a victory at the High Court. The kernel of the court’s decision was that Palestine Action remains a violent, terrorist organization. Nothing has changed in that regard. I agree with Craig Murray that this is a problematic judgement from judges who have given the most tenuous reasons for not upholding the proscription. 

The mass defiance actions must continue and if anything, now that there is no longer fear of arrest, be increased. 

We should call on Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Stop the War Coalition to abandon their normal timid approaches and openly support the mass defiance actions. The proscription regime must be broken as part of the campaign to repeal the Terrorism Act 2000, which has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with an attack on our right to organize and freedom of speech. 

Of course this victory would never have happened but for the direct action movement, led by Defend Our Juries, a liberal pacifist group. This judgement does nothing to make the idea that a direction action group is a terrorist group illegitimate and untenable. DOJ should be congratulated and in particular Tim Crosland, the former government lawyer who was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on ‘terrorism’ charges and faces 14 years imprisonment. 

The Metropolitan Police and its Zionist Commissioner Mark Rowley behaved like the Gestapo trampling on the most basic of rights, for example getting Zoom to take down a webinar on vague allegations of ‘terrorism’. 

We should have nothing but contempt for those who claim to be our friends but who did everything they could to undermine our solidarity. I refer in particular to Phil Bevin, an ex-member of Jeremy Corbyn’s staff, who went so far as to allege that Tim Crosland was a police/state agent. 

The Stalinist 'Right to Protest Ltd' sought the approval of the Police for their posters!

Also included in this is the so-called Right to Protest Ltd., a front for a tiny Maoist group, the CPGB-ML led by Joti Brar which explicitly called on people not to hold placards supporting Palestine Action. They even got the Police to approve the wording of their own placards. So much for their pretence at being revolutionary.

Phil Bevin’s insinuations that Tim Crosland was a state asset and infiltrator should be treated with contempt. If anyone is likely to be a state asset and acting as an intelligence cut-out it is Bevin himself.

My advice to Palestine Action and Defend Our Juries is – celebrate our victory but don’t let up on the protests until our victory is final.

Tony Greenstein

See The Palestine Action ruling vindicates the courageous – and shames the complicit

On Thursday I’m Debating with Phil Bevin Who Believes That Mass Protests Against the Proscription of Palestine Action Do the Work of the State

A Tiny Group of Conspiracy Theorists Are Smearing Defend Our Juries & Denigrating the Mass Protests Against Proscription

This is the Link to View the Debate

https://www.youtube.com/@DeepDivePerspective

It's a Scam 

There is a small group who, ever since the protests against the proscription of Palestine Action began, have been doing their best to undermine the protests. Civil Disobedience in their eyes is the wrong strategy but they haven’t proposed an alternative because, of course, they don’t have one.

In reality they despise mass action from a mixture of motives, not least contempt for the masses. They believe the state is all powerful, the repression cannot be resisted and people should accept their lot. So anyone who takes to the streets is branded ‘psy-ops’ or an intelligence cut out or some other phrase taken from the lexicon of conspiracy theorists.

In this case they represent themselves as the Defend the Right to Protest Ltd., Company number 16332885, which has 3 Directors – Ranjeet Brar, Novjot Brar and Eleonore KOFFI, all members of the Communist Party of Great Britain – Marxist Leninist.

Others conspiracists include Phil Bevin @philbevin who was once part of Corbyn’s Leader of the Opposition Office, Dr Alan Williams @alanwilliamz, Dic Penderyn @PenderynDic_ and Jon Harding @_i0n

Williams was formerly of  Ecological Action. He asked Sayeed Farouky, a former PA activist, incriminating questions under a fake name (John Hunter). They believe that mass civil disobedience is state sponsored.

They have been making strenuous efforts in recent weeks to undermine the protests accusing both Defend Our Juries and key people like Tim Crosland of being state operatives. Let us recall the timeline of events surrounding the proscription of Palestine Action as a ‘terrorist’ organisation.

Timeline of the Proscription of Palestine Action

On the evening of July 4 Interim Relief was refused by Justice Chamberlain and then the Court of Appeal. The proscription of Palestine Action went ahead. On the evening of July 5^th, before the banning came into effect Defend Our Juries held a public zoom meeting at which Huda Ammori, from PA spoke. PA itself was wound up at midnight.

At this meeting it was agreed by all, including Palestine Action activists, that a series of rolling protests would be held at which people would hold up placards saying ‘We Oppose Genocide, We Support Palestine Action’. This was to be co-ordinated by DOJ.

Defend Our Juries Protest Tavistock Square Against the Proscription of Palestine Action

On July 30 leave was granted by J Chamberlain to apply for Judicial Review. On 4 September the government was given permission to appeal with Lord Justice Underhill quoted as saying that “I believe that the appeal has a real prospect of success.”

On 17 October the Court of Appeal not only refused a government application to overturn the decision to grant Palestine Action leave to apply for JR, it also added 2 further grounds for appeal.

It is clear to anyone who has actually read the Court of Appeal decision that it was heavily influenced by the fact that over 2,000 people (now 3,000+) had been arrested for defying the proscription of Palestine Action.

It was not clear however to Phil Bevin and his co-conspiracists. In a blog Bevin took exception to my suggestion that the mass arrests might have had something to do with the decision of the Court of Appeal. Bevin argued that

there are actually two points to consider regarding the Court of Appeal decision:

1. whether the level of public support has a bearing on appealing the proscription;

2. whether the processes of appealing the proscription of a group (POAC – Proscribed Organisation Appeal Commission) , which is the route the Government wanted to prioritise over the high court appeal, and challenge to the legality of the Government’s original proscription of Palestine Action via the High Court, are separate.

Naturally for a conspiracy theorist who had attacked the protests, the second alternative won out. Unsurprisingly Bevin echoed the Court of Appeal’s rationale, stating that ‘The Court of Appeal has in fact based its decision on the second point’.

Well as Mandy Rice-Davies said, ‘they would, wouldn’t they’.’ It is highly unlikely that the Court of Appeal would come right out and say that but for the protests they would have upheld the government appeal. The surprising thing though is that they as good as did confess that the protests had had a major impact on their decision.

Justice Chamberlain, who granted leave to apply for a Judicial Review has been removed from hearing the case raising suspicions that the result is being fixed.

If you go to paragraph 59 of Huda Ammori v Secretary of State for the Home Department you will read:

It is blindingly obvious that the Court of Appeal’s decision was indeed due to the mass protests.  However if you have staked everything, including your reputation, on slandering and denigrating the protests as counterproductive, alongside a group of mad Maoists, then it is very difficult to climb down. If your reputation rests on a series of false, conspiratorial lies, backing down and admitting you are wrong is difficult.

Most people find eating humble pie disagreeable and indigestible. Bevin and fellow conspiracists are not the first people to find it so and they won’t be the last. David Aaronovitch promised to gorge lashings of the stuff if he was proven wrong over the Iraq War. Unfortunately he didn’t keep his promise.

However there is no way of reading the above other than accepting that the protests have led to the brink of the proscription of Palestine Action being declared unlawful.  It may turn out that at the last hurdle the High Court will nonetheless uphold Yvette Cooper’s decision to equate a protest group with a terrorist group.

Given that the definition of ‘terrorism’ is so wide in the Terrorism Act 2000 that is still a possibility. See Conor Crummey: The Principle of Legality, the Definition of ‘Terrorism’, and Palestine Action

The presence of the two Brars as company directors suggests that this nonsense originates with the CPGB-Marxist Leninist, a small Stalin worshipping Maoist group. You can read their letter to DOJ, in the name of Right to Protest Ltd., here. The first question is why the Brars haven’t written it in the name of their own organisation. Joti Brar also doubles as the President of the Stalin Society and was Vice-Chair of the Workers Party before George Galloway got rid of her.

Bevin has been much put out by my rebuttal of his nonsense and issued A response to defamatory statements. He can make defamatory statements a plenty but he finds them obnoxious when he is on the receiving end. He didn’t like my accusation that he is a conspiracy nut or anti-Semitic, despite him giving full backing to David Miller own conspiracy theories.

However Bevin has had no hesitation in attacking individuals in DOJ. People such as Clive Dolphin, who worked at Lockheed Martin. It is as if we should condemn forever people who have worked in arms factories. They bear the mark of Cain.

Tim Crosland, who used to be a government lawyer, is a particular target. Tim has been upfront about his decision to resign government service and he has now been charged under s.12(1) of the Terrorism Act, which carries a 14 year sentence.

Even I came under attack for having ‘a family connection to the IDF’. My brother lives in Israel and has for a long time. He will therefore have served in the army although he’s too old to do so now.  However according to the McCarthyite playbook of Bevin and co. I am somehow tarred with the same brush. This is the methodology of our conspiracy theorists.

Phil Bevin ranting

Bevin and co. have never risked anything. They seem to think that once you have taken the government’s shilling that you will never redeem yourself. This argument, I have to confess, leaves me cold. If Tim had hidden his past then it would be a different matter but he has been quite open about it.

Edward Snowden

As a friend remarked, perhaps we should damn Edward Snowden too because he once worked for the CIA even though he betrayed the secrets of how they and other government agencies spied on the public. Chelsea Manning is equally suspect, despite having been prosecuted because she too was an army intelligence analyst.

I contacted former activists in Palestine Action to get their take on this groups activities and their first response was ‘They are nuts mate. And they have been trying to trick people.’

‘These people, never met them, put 2 & 2 together and make 85 – its literally madness.’ And that just about sums it up.

One of the methods of the conspiracy theorists is to take any disagreement in the government or civil service as proof of collusion. The Guardian ran an article about how government advisers told ministers that banning Palestine Action could make it more popular. It is quite normal for the civil service to advise Ministers about proposed legislation. It is for Ministers to either accept or reject that advice. Yvette Cooper, being a rich, thick, white and racist ‘feminist’, chose to ignore that advice. Why?

Probably because of the Zionist campaign against PA. The misnamed Campaign Against Antisemitism, which is a charity despite being funded by the Israeli state, had long been campaigning for the proscription of Palestine Action. When Palestine Action was proscribed, the CAA claimed victory. The CAA were not the only Zionist group to campaign for proscription. We Believe in Israel also urged their supporters to write to their MP demanding action.

This was the backdrop to the proscription of PA. Zionist organisations, Elbit, Lord Walney – the government’s sex pest advisor on ‘extremism’ had all been mounting a campaign calling for PA’s proscription. Bevin and his co-conspiracy theorists knew better.

When the Guardian published an article on 11 November “Advisers told ministers banning Palestine Action could make it more popular” which evaluated the possible consequences of proscribing Palestine Action Cooper decided to steam ahead, not because she disagreed with the advice but because she wanted to make Palestine Action more popular according to Bevin and his co-conspiracists!

If you follow the conspiracy it was because she wanted to use the inevitable protests as an excuse for more repressive legislation. Defend Our Juries according to Bevin’s theory saw its chance to help  Cooper achieve her objectives.

The advice of the civil servants was that PA was a‘small single issue group with lower mainstream media exposure’ than other direct action groups such as Just Stop Oil.’ The Advisors suggested there was a ‘growing frustration with Israeli military methods and actions in Gaza’ and that ‘60% of Britons believed Israel had gone too far in the war in Gaza.’

Bevin’s conclusion?

Ministers intended to raise Palestine Action’s public profile through proscription and that Defend our Juries has played a significant role in serving that agenda via its “Lift the Ban” campaign, leading to the arrest of thousands of activists.

Bevin then had a detour to attack another favourite target, Roger Hallam, who has just served a prison sentence. Hallam is

a psyop and/or security apparatus backed provocation - has links to the US national security apparatus. I won’t bore you with the tedious details of this conspiracy [thank  god! – TG] but it is of a piece with all the other conspiracies.

Bevin lays out two scenarios. One is that ignoring the adviser’s advice was a mistake ‘that Defend our Juries have since sought to exploit.’ The other scenario which Bevin prefers is that

raising Palestine Action’s profile was the purpose of the proscription, which provided the opportunity for Defend our Juries to act as agent provocateurs, driving activists into the net of the police. In my view, the following evidence weighs the case in favour of the second interpretation:

In support of his thesis Bevin cites ‘the curious failure of the police to close down DoJ’s online communications’ but he is wrong. Twice the Police contacted Zoom who closed down the activists’ meetings at their request.’

The actions of DOJ are in a long line of similar protests stretching back to defiance of the Combination Acts by trade unionists resulting in the transportation of the Tolpuddle Martyrs. There have been many similar acts of defiance of unjust laws – Chartists, Suffragettes, Anti-fascists and anti-racists. If Bevin and his myriad conspiracy theorists had their way then no struggle would ever have been successful because when setting out on a campaign people would have been overawed by the strength of the state.

Anyway come and hear the debate on Thursday at 7.15 pm. and decide for yourself whether the conspiracy theorists and loony tunes have got it right or not.

Tony Greenstein