UK: 27 arrested under Terrorism Act at Palestine Action protest
UK: 27 arrested under Terrorism Act at Palestine Action protest
Meanwhile five Youth Demand activists were arrested for blocking a float at London Pride belonging to a company that provides technology to the Israeli military
You're viewing a single thread.
So you can now be a terrorist without blowing anyone up or otherwise killing anyone. Merely inconveniencing and injuring (Edit 2: through carelessness rather than malice, by the look of it) is sufficient.
Therefore the UK government, in that act where they took away benefits, inconveniencing and causing indirect injury to many, is by this definition a terrorist organisation. (And likewise the government before them.)
Edit: Forgot the obvious point: Clearly, since the IDF like blowing up and killing people and are not classified as terrorists, that either means that such actions are not terrorist actions any more and only the milder actions now qualify, or they are the worst kind of terrorists and should be labelled as such.
Edit 3: Source stating there may have been injuries associated with the group's actions: https://theconversation.com/palestine-action-what-it-means-to-proscribe-a-group-and-what-the-effects-could-be-259619
Palestine Action did not injure anyone. The worst that they have caused was property damage.
And yes, now in the UK if you support civil disobedience as a tool of protest against Israels genocide and the complicity of the UK in it, the police will probably charge you as a terrorist or terrorist supporter. Only then in court it can be decided, whether your actions or opinion are directed towards the proscribed as terrorist group or not.
This also has two further ramifications.
First of all, these investigations and arrests are now done by the counter terrorist unit. This means that resources that could be used to prevent and fight actual terrorism will be diluted to crack down on peaceful protestors.
Furthermore this equates groups such as ISIS or Al-Quaida with Palestine Action, subsequently making the charge against such groups less serious, while motivating people with legitimate protest goals to escalate their protests to violence, as they are charged as terrorists either way.
I was adding an edit to that part of my comment to clarify as you were submitting yours. I agree that it doesn't even look like they're seeking to injure anyone.
Merely inconveniencing and injuring is sufficient.
How would injuring not potentially fall under terrorism? It depends on the motivation alone.
You're right. I wasn't clear. It doesn't look like they're going out of their way to cause grievous injury though.
What's with the suggestion that they're injuring people at all? Has it happened?
This article states that injuries are alleged to have resulted from the group's actions. I should have added this to my original comment in the first place, but better late than never.
I swear to fuck, if England has to start chanting "From the Channel to the sea" I will be in the PLA