The Big Lie at the Heart of Israel’s Genocide in Gaza is that It’s a Fight against Terrorism i.e. Hamas

Compared to the IDF Hamas are the equivalent of Orwell’s ‘Old Maids Biking to Holy Communion Through The Mists of the Autumn Mornings’

The commonly accepted definition of ‘terrorism’ is is:

the use of violence or threats of violence to create fear and achieve political, religious, or ideological goals. It often involves targeting civilians or innocent people to influence public opinion, government actions, or policy decisions.

Most people have a good understanding of what terrorism means in practice. It is the planting of a bomb at a concert, such as the Manchester Arena bombing where 21 people died or the attack on the Bataclan Theatre in Paris where 89 concert goers died. Or Israel's bombing of a school or hospital because they believe a member of Hamas has entered the premises.

The Terrorism Act 2000 though has a much wider definition. Terrorism is defined as the use or threat of action which is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public and it is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause which involves:

1.           Serious violence against a person

2.           Serious damage to property

3.           endangers a person’s life,

4.           creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or

5.           is designed seriously to interfere with or disrupt an electronic system

This definition is so wide that the state can label virtually any group it dislikes as terrorists including non-violent protest groups such as Palestine Action.

This definition is absurd. Terrorism is not damage to property, unless it is combined with attacks on people, especially civilians.

It has nothing to with health and safety. Were the Chief Executives of the cladding companies who caused the Grenfell fire deaths prosecuted?

It has nothing to do with electronic systems either.

There is separate legislation to deal with all of the above. Terrorism is about creating terror in a civilian population by e.g. planting bombs in market places, schools and hospitals. If anyone is the terrorist it is the Israeli state in Gaza and the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is happening is a nakedly transparent attempt to use the spectre of terrorism in order to attack fundamental democratic rights such as freedom of speech and association by labelling protest groups like Palestine Action or resistance groups like Hamas and the PKK as ‘terrorists’.

It results in the arrest of blind people and octogenarians for holding up a sign in Parliament Square supporting Palestine Action. It results in a Police raid on five members of Defend Our Juries to prevent them addressing a press conference. This is terrorism. Indeed one prime candidate for proscription as a terrorist group is the genocide supporting Metropolitan Police!

It’s strange that the Met are so concerned about the proscription of Palestine Action but are remarkably unconcerned about the dozens of British people who have served in the IDF in Gaza committing war crimes, contrary to the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. The International Criminal Court Act 2001  makes aiding a genocide a criminal act but the Met don’t seem very interested in that law. They pick and choose which laws to implement according to the whims and dictates of their political masters.

If this happened in Hong Kong it would be all over the BBC but because it’s in Britain the fuckwits say next to nothing.

The Terrorism Act allows the State to proscribe and thus render illegal national liberation movements and resistance organisations such as the African National Congress in South Africa, which Thatcher and Reagan termed a terrorist group.

It would have been equally possible, if the Terrorism Act had been in force a century ago, to proscribe the French or Polish resistance to the Nazis. That is what the Nazis called them. In other words it entirely depends on which side you are on.

As Lord Carrington, Thatcher’s first Foreign Secretary declared, ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorists’.  In other words it is entirely subjective and is open to abuse by the government.

Most people would support the right of the Kurds to self-determination but the government has proscribed the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) because the government, is in alliance with Recip Erdogan’s semi-fascist government.

The Terrorism Act and proscription has nothing to do with fighting terrorism and everything to do with defining as ‘terrorists’ groups the government doesn’t like. It is about imperialist foreign policy.

Most people would say that the neo-Nazi Azov Brigade in the Ukraine which openly displays Nazi symbols and whose founder Andre Biletsky declared in 2010 that his country’s mission was to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade . . . against Semite-led Untermenschen”, or inferior races was a terrorist group.

So why the fuck haven't you summoned the Israeli Ambassador the war criminal @TzipiHotovely - or is it that you are a racist coconut @davidlammy and Palestinian lives aren't as important?

The late Bernie Grant the former MP for Tottenham must be turning in his grave that he has… https://t.co/se0zTfs5if pic.twitter.com/HxDQdTRAIP

— Tony Greenstein tonygreenstein.com (@TonyGreenstein) August 29, 2025

 

However the Azov Battalion  are one of the main militias at the disposal of the Ukrainian government in its fight with Russia so politics dictate that they are not proscribed.

Similarly Abu Mohammed al-Jolani heads what is the HTS/Al Qaeda government in Syria which Britain and the United States are establishing friendly relations with, despite the fact that HTS is still proscribed as another name for Al Qaeda in Syria (Al Nusra).

Despite the thousands of Alawites, Druze and Christians who have been massacred by these fascists, people like John Sawyer, the former head of MI6 and Alistair Campbell and Rory Stuart have praised them without facing legal sanctions. Sawyer spoke of how

‘’the actions we've seen of HTS over the last two weeks have been those of a liberation movement, not of a terrorist organisation."

What is that if not a ‘supportive’ comment in breach of s.12(1A) of the 2000 Terrorism Act?

So why are the Police and Government attacking people that they deem supporters of Hamas, who in reality are supporters of the Palestinians?  The answer is simple. Because of Britain’s alliance with Israel which is a consequence of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

That is why, despite the horrendous massacres and human rights abuses, which clearly amount to a premeditated genocide, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands continue to supply Israel with the weapons they need to continue to carry on the killing.

The hypocrisy of our war criminal rulers, such as Starmer and Lammy is staggering. They constantly refer to the break-out from Gaza, the world’s largest open air ‘prison camp’ (David Cameron), on October 7 as an unmitigated atrocity, whilst refusing to allow the word 'genocide' to pass their lips. They ignore the slaughter and starvation of Palestinian civilians and the open declaration by Israeli leaders that they intend to carry out the war crime of ethnic cleansing.

Think of any of the hundreds if not thousands of atrocities that have been committed in Gaza. All of them have been justified by Israel’s professed determination to eliminate the ‘terrorists’ of Hamas.

Let us leave aside the question as to whether Israel’s real goal is the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and their replacement by Israeli settlers. Let us forget the fact that the Israeli government and IDF are liars to whom the truth is a stranger.

Let us pretend that their goal is the elimination of Hamas. The same group that Netanyahu supported over the past 20 years as a means of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state. Israel was happy for Qatar to channel funds to Hamas.

Israel was instrumental in the creation of Hamas. But we are supposed to forget everything that is contradicts the imperialist narrative. That means forgetting the Washington Post’s 2014 article How Israel Helped Create Hamas or the Wall Street Journal’s 2009 article How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas and many similar articles.

In order to support US imperialism and its Zionist attack dog in the Middle East we have to put to one side anything that runs counter to the idea that Israel is on the side of the good guys fighting terrorism.

For example we should forget that Israel was born in terrorism. We must pretend that its three terror groups – Lehi/Stern Gang, the Irgun and Hagannah were really freedom fighters. According to the Soldiers of Oxfordshire Museum archive

Jewish terrorist groups were responsible for repeated terrorist incidents and attacks on the Palestine Police, British Army and British Dependants as well as massacres of Palestinian villagers to free up land for settlement. The major Jewish terrorist groups were Haganah and Irgun, both of whom formed prior to the Second World War, and Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang which formed in 1940. In total 784 British men, women, soldiers and civilians were killed between the years 1945 and 1948 in an attempt to bring peace and stability to Palestine.

But this was not terrorism according to the Zionists. Today there are streets and even towns named after the ‘heroes’ of the Zionist terror gangs including Yair Stern, Commander of Lehi. In 1940-1 Lehi, offered the Nazis a military pact – not once but twice.

Lehi was also responsible for the assassination of both the resident British Minister in Cairo, Lord Moyne and the UN mediator Count Folk Bernadotte, a man who had personally saved thousands of Jews and non-Jews from the Nazis. The latter murder was ordered by Yitzhak Shamir, a man who twice became Israeli Prime Minister.

It is therefore no surprise that it is the IDF, in their ‘war’ against children in the Gaza Strip, who are the real terrorists. If ‘terrorism’ is the problem then it is with the terrorists that western imperialism is aligned. Israel is the classic example of a terrorist state.

There is no atrocity, no abomination that it is not capable of. From bombing hospitals, schools, universities, bakeries, water desalination plants, food stores, even Red Crescent workers. Israel has done the lot. Israel is even arming ISIS gangs in Gaza but you won't get that from the BBC.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the PFLP/DFLP are the good guys. No matter how many epithets Starmer/Lammy/Trump use, the fact is that the Palestinian fighters in Gaza are fighting evil.

Al Nasser Hospital Bombing

On 25 August Israeli tanks fired missiles killing two journalists who were using a camera on the 4th floor of the Nasser Hospital. According to Israel the target was a “Hamas Camera” that was tracking the movement of Israeli soldiers in the area who “felt threatened and moved to eliminate the threat.”

This however was a lie. The camera fed into a Reuters news feed. It had nothing to do with Hamas but as we know Israel never knowingly tells the truth when a lie suffices. The BBC however will accept any Israeli lie at face value. See Jonathan Cook’s Even the media's Gaza 'investigations' hide the real story of Israel's atrocities

As journalists and rescuers gathered, a second strike targeted them, in what was termed by Israel as a “double tap” attack. It was intended to murder those who were trying to rescue the victims. Since the second attack was filmed live, Israel had no option but to admit to it.

New video evidence shows that Israel's 'double-tap' was in fact a 'triple tap' involving three missiles designed to ensure as many people as possible were killed.

Netanyahu apologised for what he termed was a ‘mishap’, stating that “Israel does not target journalists and rescue workers as such.” 20 people were killed, including 5 journalists, a doctor and a number of hospital and rescue workers.

More journalists have been killed in Gaza by Israel than in both world wars, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan combined, says Costs of War project. It is the deadliest conflict ever for journalists.

There were no allegations of Hamas Command and Control Centres. The five journalists were murdered, along with the health care staff and patients, because they were journalists. That is a simple message that our media avoids telling.

All western journalists are barred from reporting on Israel’s war crimes. Only Palestinian journalists are able to provide the stories. That is why they are a target.  Israel doesn’t want its crimes reported. What is this if not terrorism?

The first strike killed journalist Hussam al-Masri, who worked for Reuters. The second and third killed journalists Mohammed Salama (Al Jazeera), Mariam Abu Daqa (Independent Arabia and AP), Moaz Abu Taha (NBC) and Ahmed Abu Aziz (Quds Feed). Palestinian journalist Mohammad Fayq is in a critical condition.

The attack on Nasser Hospital came two weeks after six journalists, including four from Al Jazeera, were killed in an Israeli targeted attack near al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.

There was no 'Hamas camera' - just complicity in Israel's genocide | David Hearst |

One Reuters journalist, Valerie Zink, mourning her colleague who died in the strikes, resigned. saying she can no longer work for an agency she accuses of ‘justifying and enabling’ Israel’s systematic killing of journalists in Gaza by repeatedly and uncritically parroting the Israeli narrative.

In the Hebrew-language Israeli press (not covered in the Western Press) the soldiers involved were furious at Netanyahu for apologising insisting that the “double tap” operation was authorised by the higher echelons of the army. A number of prominent Israeli journalists publicly supported the action, saying “there are no journalists in Gaza”, something repeated by the Christian Zionist war criminal, Richard Kemp, in the Telegraph. Kemp argued that killing all those “pretending to be journalists was mandatory and that their killing was “better late than never.” Kemp is a regular guest on the BBC who treat him as an ‘expert’.

Ha'aretz reported that i24NEWS Arab affairs analyst Zvi Yehezkeli claimed that the murdered  journalists were "[Hamas elite] Nukhba terrorists in every sense". In other words, because telling the truth is so damaging to Israel’s genocide it is justified to kill them. Can one imagine any more despicable creature than an Israeli ‘journalist?

Journalists congregating on Al Nasser's stairwell before Israel's strike

As Peter Beaumont wrote in the Guardian:

The attack targeted a civilian building, specifically a hospital, in a reckless double-tap strike that killed civilians, with rescue workers and journalists among them. All categories that should be protected under international law.

While the Israel Defense Forces, which have killed about 200 journalists already in the Gaza war, immediately attempted to suggest the killing of civilians had been in error, the reality is that it appears to be policy and not a mistake.

What is striking about this incident is that each individual element – the targeting of a working hospital, of journalists and rescue workers, of civilian injured already under treatment – would be expected to draw accusations of a war crime in its own right.

There is no war crime of which Israel is not guilty.  It is completely indifferent, like the madman in the White House, to international law.

The coconut who masquerades as our Foreign Secretary, David Lammy called in the Russian Ambassador because of an attack on Ukraine which killed 21 people. This is a fraction of the number Israel kills each day. Why has this racist buffoon not called in the Israeli Ambassador, Tzipi Hotoveli? Racism and its handmaiden imperialism is the only explanation.

The disparity in treatment demonstrates that despite his hollow words of condemnation, Lammy and Starmer have no real problem with Israel’s genocidal war other than that Israel barely bothers to hide its intentions and the consequent damage to their reputation.

My own position is quite clear and always has been. Hamas is a resistance organisation against an illegal Israeli occupation and all resistance, including that of Hamas, should be supported.  Does that mean I support Hamas politically? No. I have frequently criticised them on my blog for their social policies, their use of torture and their Islamicisation policies. Their ideal goal, the creation of an Islamic state is a reactionary utopia.

I shall be going on trial shortly under s.12(1A) of the Terrorism Act because I support the right of the Palestinian resistance to oppose the occupation and siege of Gaza and that includes October 7. Because as I said earlier, the real target of the British State is freedom of speech not terrorism.

Tony Greenstein

Webinar - Fighting Back Against Starmer’s Police State

We live in a Dystopia where Opposing Genocide & Attacking Arms Factories is a Crime Whereas Profiting from the Death of Children is Lawful

Stop Starmer's Police State Webinar 30 August 2025

Last Saturday over 200 people attended our Webinar ‘Stopping Starmer’s Police State – Defending the Right to Protest’ to listen to six different speakers, three of whom have been arrested under the Terrorism Acts, one of whom is the mother of a daughter, Fatimah, who is in custody, Huda Ammori the co-founder of Palestine Action and Franck Magennis, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers who is presently one of the lawyers involved in seeking the deproscription of Hamas.

It says something about the nature of the Tory Party and its far-right leader, Kemi Bad Enoch (presumably her mother had forewarning of how she would turn out when she was named!) that its Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, someone who is more comfortable in the company of neo-Nazis and asylum protesters, has branded as ‘sickening’ the bid to deproscribe Hamas.

Natalie Strecker’s pre-recorded speech

Unfortunately Natalie Strecker, who has been charged with a terrorist offence in Jersey, under laws similar but not identical to our own, did not feel able to attend and speak in person. She did however kindly agree to send us a video with her message and it is shown above

Filton 24 supporters stage demo outside prison holding activistsc / London

The first speaker was Sukaina Rajwani, whose daughter Fatema Zainab is one of the Filton 24, who have been incarcerated for a year now and can expect to stay in prison for another year before even facing a trial. This is completely outrageous. They are charged with non-terrorist offences yet they are being kept in appalling conditions in prison as if they were terrorists.

Teuta Hoxha has been held in prison without trial for the last nine months, and has been on hunger strike since 11 August as a protest against the denial of her basic rights. She says that she and her Palestine Action co-defendants are being monitored by the Counter Extremism Unit. See Filton 24 hunger striker tells the Canary government is monitoring her under counter extremism

It is a sad, sick comment on Starmer and Cooper’s Britain that young women and men who are trying to stop a genocide are treated like the worst criminals whilst arms manufacturers, who profit from the bodies of babies torn to shredd are feted, wined and dined.

One person who should be in gaol is Lord Dannat, a former head of the British army and a member of the House of Lords. He urged ministers to crack down on Palestine Action at the request of the US defence company Teledyne that employs him as an adviser.

Despite his claims of non-interference, police transcripts in a trial disclosed internal objections to his involvement, although a judge ultimately ruled that he had not interfered in the active investigation.

The revelation arrives amid existing scandals: Dannatt was already under two separate investigations. One from the House of Lords watchdog concerning a covert video of him offering access to ministers for commercial clients, and another into lobbying on behalf of CF Industries to save a fertilizer plant – where he received honoraria and leveraged his peerage for legitimacy. See Lord Dannatt urged ministers to crack down on Palestine Action at request of US firm and Scandal-hit Lord Dannatt now caught lobbying for arms industry against Palestine Action

Next up to speak was Mick Napier, Chair of Scottish PSC who has spent most of his active life being arrested. It is ironic that despite Scotland being ruled for most of that time by the Scottish National Party, the SNP has given next to no support to the Palestinians who are also fighting for their freedom from an alien occupation. Indeed the record of the Scottish Police is as bad as those in England. See SACC Statement on the Arrest of Mick Napier.

The next speaker was Richard Medhurst, a journalist who was arrested by the counter-terror police at Heathrow Airport and accused of ‘expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a terrorist organisation’. He was detained for 24 hours, his electronic devices seized and he has been waiting for over a year to see if he is going to be charged. See his account here.

Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action was the next to speak and as always she gave a barnstorming speech outlining the growth of the campaign against Palestine Action’s proscription.

Next up was Franck Magennis, a prominent Irish and socialist barrister from Garden Court Chambers. Franck is involved in the attempt to secure de-proscription of Hamas. He has been targeted by the Israeli government front group the so-called Campaign Against Antisemitism for having told the racist Chief Rabbi Mirvis to shut his racist, Zionist mouth!

The CAA have submitted not one but two complaints against Franck.  Presumably on the basis that if one doesn’t succeed the other might! Among the things they objected to was the statement that:

“Zionism is collapsing. Keep hammering anyone who still identifies as a Zionist. Their apartheid state is a pariah. It’s on its way out, just like South Africa, like Jim Crow, like the French in Algeria. Escalate!!”

Most people would agree that this is a good example of the exercise of free speech but given that the CAA is an Israeli front group it’s not surprising that they believe that British standards of free speech should mirror those of Israel – where pro-Palestine speech normally results in arrest and a beating.

I was the last speaker and I will leave you to watch to find out what I said! Apart from, that is, taking Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Ben Jamal to task for having done nothing to support the campaign to destroy the proscription of Palestine Action. PSC still labourd under the illusion that they can, by staging demonstrations in London that no one reports and writing protest letters to MPs that no one reads, win over the British Establishment to the Palestinian cause. Softly, softly and mainstreaming is what they call a strategy.

After all the speakers had spoken there was a Q&A session. The meeting was co-chaired by Esther Giles of the Socialist Labour Network and Haim Bresheeth of Jewish Network for Palestine.

The meeting itself was sponsored by the JNP, Jewish Voice for Labour, the SLN and Scottish PSC.

Tony Greenstein

Stopping Starmer’s Police State – Defending the Right to Protest Webinar - Saturday August 30, 6pm

 We live in an Orwellian World Where Opposition to Genocide is Terrorism & Support for Genocide is a Mark of Civilisation

Please Register Here

https://tinyurl.com/5y87x7fs 

Alexei Sayle on how Starmer, Yvette Cooper and Lammy have sold their souls to the devil

On Saturday 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 9^th August over 500 people were prepared to be arrested and hopefully on 6^th September a 1,000 will be prepared to be arrested for the ‘crime’ of supporting  Palestine Action.

On 20^th 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 5^th 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.

·                     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.

20^th 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.