[Opinion. PA remains proscribed while UK decides whether to appeal. No doubt those establishmentarian dinosaurs will do so. Meanwhile, I'm hoping Britain sees the largest free speech demonstrations ever held! I'll try to post the entire court decision.]

Huda Ammori, founder of Palestine Action:

“This is a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people, striking down a decision that will forever be remembered as one of the most extreme attacks on free speech in recent British history.

“Palestine Action is the first civil disobedience organisation that does not advocate for violence to be proscribed by the British Government as a ‘terrorist’ group, in a Trumpian abuse of power which would have seen this Labour Government proscribe the Suffragettes.

This ban was unlawful, resulting in the unlawful arrest of nearly 3,000 people - among them priests, vicars, former magistrates and retired doctors – under terrorism laws for simply sitting in silence while holding signs reading:

‘I oppose genocide – I support Palestine Action’.

The high court upheld two grounds of challenge, including that the ban was a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

The president of the king’s bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn, said that “Palestine Action is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality”, but that proscription was still “disproportionate”.

In a 46-page judgment, she said: “A very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the definition [of the Terrorism Act 2000].”

9 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

This ban was unlawful, resulting in the unlawful arrest of nearly 3,000 people - among them priests, vicars, former magistrates and retired doctors – under terrorism laws for simply sitting in silence while holding signs reading:

A very small glimmer of hope that free speech is not quite dead...despite their best efforts which will no doubt continue.

Palestine Action ban is lawful, Court of Appeal rules

The government's proscription of Palestine Action as a terror organisation is lawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In one of the most significant rulings on national security in recent years, five of the most senior judges in the country overturned an earlier decision from the High Court that the ban had breached the right to protest and had been incorrectly taken by ministers.

But five Court of Appeal judges concluded in a hearing on Monday that the ban had been "justified and proportionate".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gy927jx88o

31 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Palestine Action ban is lawful, Court of Appeal rules

The government's proscription of Palestine Action as a terror organisation is lawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In one of the most significant rulings on national security in recent years, five of the most senior judges in the country overturned an earlier decision from the High Court that the ban had breached the right to protest and had been incorrectly taken by ministers.

But five Court of Appeal judges concluded in a hearing on Monday that the ban had been "justified and proportionate".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gy927jx88o

Absolutely the correct decision. Palestine Action are not a peaceful movement, it's a home and breeding ground for extremists who foment social division and antisemitism.

Breaking the back of a policewoman carrying out her duty with a sledgehammer, and damaging military aircraft that are an integral part of the defence of the United Kingdom is not an act of protesting, it is an act of  terrorism, and the Court of Appeal agreed.

Saying that the ruling is an affront to freedom of speech, is a lame and disingenuous deflection; people still have the right to protest in support of Palestine, but not behind the banner of a proscribed terrorist organisation that engages in acts of violence and criminal damage.

What the Court of Appeal said was that the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, had a right to decide what was a terrorist group and what was not.

There will be many, many more arrests before this case is heard by the Supreme Court. I think it's one of the most important decisions in modern law, what constitute terrorism.

It's not violence against property; property doesn't hurt. It just costs money.

In dozens of actions, only one twisted person knocked that cop. Luckily, she was not badly hurt and declined to press assault charges. That activist was not adequately trained in nonviolence. It didn't happen in any of the dozens of actions I organised.

6 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

In dozens of actions, only one twisted person knocked that cop. Luckily, she was not badly hurt and declined to press assault charges.

Why have you written such lies ? not badly hurt ?

I can only conclude that your anti-British left-wing views are so powerful that you simply cannot control yourself; so even when faced with irrefutable facts, you lose control and write deliberate lies.

WPC Evans suffered a fractured spine after being hit twice on the back with a sledgehammer by Samuel Corner, and was off work for three months.

She did not decline to press charges as you falsely claim, Criminals are prosecuted by the CPS in the UK, not the victim, and Corner was prosecuted and sentenced to seven years and eight months in prison.

8 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

What the Court of Appeal said was that the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, had a right to decide what was a terrorist group and what was not.

There will be many, many more arrests before this case is heard by the Supreme Court. I think it's one of the most important decisions in modern law, what constitute terrorism.

It's not violence against property; property doesn't hurt. It just costs money.

In dozens of actions, only one twisted person knocked that cop. Luckily, she was not badly hurt and declined to press assault charges. That activist was not adequately trained in nonviolence. It didn't happen in any of the dozens of actions I organised.

Loss of property most certainly hurts. It requires funds that could be better used for disbursements such as healthcare be diverted to repairing vandalized buildings. You don't care about the costs because you are not paying them. The people who do are also the people who are paying the taxes that support your generous pension.

Oh sure, you were a noble revolutionary, being sure to cause no harm during your protests. Right. I doubt that the victims of your lawlessness will agree. When I was a youth I never understood why some people would take justice into their own hands and attack protestors. I do now.

8 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

There will be many, many more arrests before this case is heard by the Supreme Court.

They need to get permission to take the case to the supreme court .

You are a member of a terrorist organisation, a sleeper cell

Edited June 16Jun 16 by Nick Carter icp

15 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

They need to get permission to take the case to the supreme court .

You are a member of a terrorist organisation, a sleeper cell

It will go to the Supreme Court and I predict to the ECHR.

The trial of Palestine Action members under common criminal law then after the conviction sentencing them under the Terrorism Act is alone a very sound argument for denial of the right to be presented in judicial process.

Trial by jury in which the jury is not informed of the accusation of terrorism is an obvious abuse of judicial authority.

29 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Loss of property most certainly hurts. It requires funds that could be better used for disbursements such as healthcare be diverted to repairing vandalized buildings. You don't care about the costs because you are not paying them. The people who do are also the people who are paying the taxes that support your generous pension.

Oh sure, you were a noble revolutionary, being sure to cause no harm during your protests. Right. I doubt that the victims of your lawlessness will agree. When I was a youth I never understood why some people would take justice into their own hands and attack protestors. I do now.

Many of the people supporting the zero-Palestinian anti genocide movement are also paying taxes.

8 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

There will be many, many more arrests before this case is heard by the Supreme Court. I think it's one of the most important decisions in modern law, what constitute terrorism.

Terrorism is when a group uses violence and intimidation to try to influence an elected Governments policies .

P.A used violence and intimidation to try to influence the UK Govs policies on Israel .

Quite straight forward really .

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Terrorism is when a group uses violence and intimidation to try to influence an elected Governments policies .

P.A used violence and intimidation to try to influence the UK Govs policies on Israel .

Quite straight forward really .

There are very many definitions of terrorism.

Interestingly the UK Government did not place terrorism charges before the jury of the recently convicted Palestinian Action members.

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There are very many definitions of terrorism.

Interestingly the UK Government did not place terrorism charges before the jury of the recently convicted Palestinian Action members.

Do you disgree with my definition of terrorism ?

If not, I suggest you change your thunbs down, to a thumbs up

7 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Do you disgree with my definition of terrorism ?

If not, I suggest you change your thunbs down, to a thumbs up

No I do not agree with your simplistic definition of terrorism.

The UK legal definition of terrorism is:

“Under UK law, specifically the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism is defined as the use or threat of action designed to influence a government, intimidate the public, or disrupt an electronic system, aimed at advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause“

The use of UK terrorism laws against a protest group might very well fit the definition of use or threat of action or action to intimidate the public right to engage in political activism.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No I do not agree with your simplistic definition of terrorism.

The UK legal definition of terrorism is:

“Under UK law, specifically the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism is defined as the use or threat of action designed to influence a government, intimidate the public, or disrupt an electronic system, aimed at advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause“

Yes that is the same as what I said .

"Terrorism is when a group uses violence and intimidation to try to influence an elected Governments policies .

P.A used violence and intimidation to try to influence the UK Govs policies on Israel .

Quite straight forward really ."

You disagreed with my post and then posted the same thing as I did .

Most peculiar behaviour

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It will go to the Supreme Court

Not necessarily so; there is no statutory right for an appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court in the UK has the discretionary power to hear or deny hearing any petition; understandable that you as a non UK citizen were unaware of this.

38 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Not necessarily so; there is no statutory right for an appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court in the UK has the discretionary power to hear or deny hearing any petition; understandable that you as a non UK citizen were unaware of this.

I’ve already stated why I think this will go to the Supreme Court and very likely the ECHR.

Perhaps address those points rather than wasting time baselessly imagining what my nationality might or might not be.

45 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Yes that is the same as what I said .

"Terrorism is when a group uses violence and intimidation to try to influence an elected Governments policies .

P.A used violence and intimidation to try to influence the UK Govs policies on Israel .

Quite straight forward really ."

You disagreed with my post and then posted the same thing as I did .

Most peculiar behaviour

No Nick, I gave the actual uk legal definition, which differed significantly from your simplistic offering.

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve already stated why I think this will go to the Supreme Court and very likely the ECHR.

Perhaps address those points rather than wasting time baselessly imagining what my nationality might or might not be.

No, you did not say you think it will go to the Supreme Court, you said, and I quote “It will go to the Supreme Court” and that is exactly the point I was addressing.

I informed you that an appeal to the Supreme Court is considered under discretion, and not a statutory right; and if you were a UK citizen you would have know that. You’re welcome.

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

No, you did not say you think it will go to the Supreme Court, you said, and I quote “It will go to the Supreme Court” and that is exactly the point I was addressing.

I informed you that an appeal to the Supreme Court is considered under discretion, and not a statutory right; and if you were a UK citizen you would have know that. You’re welcome.

You not only truncated my whole post, you chopped a sentence in half too.

I am aware the right to appeal to the SC is discretionary .

Again don’t waste your declining abilities trying to guess where I’m from.

Edited June 16Jun 16 by Chomper Higgot

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You not only truncated my whole post, you chopped a sentence in half too.

I am aware the right to appeal to the SC is discriminatory.

Again don’t waste your declining abilities trying to guess where I’m from.

Hah they’re still banned you’ll have to find another group to express your hate

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You not only truncated my whole post, you chopped a sentence in half too.

I am aware the right to appeal to the SC is discretionary .

Again don’t waste your declining abilities trying to guess where I’m from.

Yes, you are aware now, but only because I informed you; your whole sentence was “It will go to the Supreme Court and I predict to the ECHR”

In case you have a problem understanding what you yourself have written, you stated as factual that it will go to the Supreme Court, and predicted that it will go to the ECHR.

I am happy to correct your erroneous statement; and I don’t care where you come from, but thankfully it is not from the UK.

7 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Yes, you are aware now, but only because I informed you; your whole sentence was “It will go to the Supreme Court and I predict to the ECHR”

In case you have a problem understanding what you yourself have written, you stated as factual that it will go to the Supreme Court, and predicted that it will go to the ECHR.

I am happy to correct your erroneous statement; and I don’t care where you come from, but thankfully it is not from the UK.

Thank you for eventually trying to address my whole post.

My apologies for expressing an opinion you don’t like to hear.

Since you ‘don’t care where I come from’ spend less of your declining abilities pondering the matter. Save your energies for something that might be worth discussing.

Edited June 16Jun 16 by Chomper Higgot

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

My apologies for expressing an opinion you don’t like to hear.

Nothing whatsoever to do with an opinion that I don’t like to hear; you stated that the issue would go to the UK Supreme Court, and I had to correct you and inform you that it is discretionary, so that it may not necessarily got to the SC.

Nothing to do with an opinion, just you not having the requisite knowledge about the UK’s Judiciary system before commenting … you’re welcome.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No Nick, I gave the actual uk legal definition, which differed significantly from your simplistic offering.

They both said the same thing .

Can you explain the difference between .

"Terrorism is when a group uses violence and intimidation to try to influence an elected Governments policies ."

And

The UK legal definition of terrorism is:

“Under UK law, specifically the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism is defined as the use or threat of action designed to influence a government, intimidate the public, or disrupt an electronic system, aimed at advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause“

I used the word "violence" , you used the words threat of action .

But the core meaning is exactly the same

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

They both said the same thing .

Can you explain the difference between .

"Terrorism is when a group uses violence and intimidation to try to influence an elected Governments policies ."

And

The UK legal definition of terrorism is:

“Under UK law, specifically the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism is defined as the use or threat of action designed to influence a government, intimidate the public, or disrupt an electronic system, aimed at advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause“

I used the word "violence" , you used the words threat of action .

But the core meaning is exactly the same

They do not say the same thing.

The legal definition doesn’t mention violence, your bastion doesn’t mention the public.

These are significant differences.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They do not say the same thing.

The legal definition doesn’t mention violence, your bastion doesn’t mention the public.

These are significant differences.

OK, lets ask A.I. and ask whether my definition of what is terrorism is correct or not ?

Hey , A.I is this a correct definition of what terrorism is :

"Terrorism is when a group uses violence and intimidation to try to influence an elected Governments policies ."

A.I replies

Yes, that is a highly accurate summary of the core elements that define terrorism. Law enforcement and international bodies generally agree that terrorism involves the use or threat of violence to intimidate a population or coerce a government into granting political, religious, or ideological demands

4 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Loss of property most certainly hurts. It requires funds that could be better used for disbursements such as healthcare be diverted to repairing vandalized buildings. You don't care about the costs because you are not paying them. The people who do are also the people who are paying the taxes that support your generous pension.

Oh sure, you were a noble revolutionary, being sure to cause no harm during your protests. Right. I doubt that the victims of your lawlessness will agree. When I was a youth I never understood why some people would take justice into their own hands and attack protestors. I do now.

In the first place, I don’t get a pension, generous or otherwise, from anywhere. My academic career was in Thailand. On retirement, well, you know how that goes.

Elbit is a listed company. The only people hurt when their property is destroyed are those poor shareholders. The people who are not hurt by Elbit are Palestinians.

Spraying paint on an RAF plane. Are you really naive enough to think that money would have been taken from the NHS.

Those victims of my lawlessness were, for example, the companies which built nuclear submarines and that made napalm to ignite Vietnamese.

My other victim was a faceless govt that was murdering thousands for no reason and continues to do so.

And I was arrested and did my time.

Sorry, I take the moral high ground here. If I could cost any govt one cent that would not be used for war, I’d take that challenge.

If you attacked my protest, none of us would have fought back, just like the Vietnamese and Palestinians. They, of course, weren’t given any chance tio fight back.

Pity you didn’t join the revolution in the 60s. Perhaps we’d have a better world.

6 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Why have you written such lies ? not badly hurt ?

I can only conclude that your anti-British left-wing views are so powerful that you simply cannot control yourself; so even when faced with irrefutable facts, you lose control and write deliberate lies.

WPC Evans suffered a fractured spine after being hit twice on the back with a sledgehammer by Samuel Corner, and was off work for three months.

She did not decline to press charges as you falsely claim, Criminals are prosecuted by the CPS in the UK, not the victim, and Corner was prosecuted and sentenced to seven years and eight months in prison.

Anti-British war machine? Absolutely!

Indeed, Evans was off work for three months doing physio. I do not mean to demean her suffering. I worked in rehabilitation medicine for three years, mostly spinal cord injuries. She got off lucky.

No thanks to Samuel Corner. I can’t imagine his aim was to disable this policewomen. Nevertheless, he deserved seven years and eight months to think about his actions.

However, that sentence for grievous bodily harm also included criminal damage with which all four were charged. Corner was given, deservedly, the heaviest sentence.

I apologise for my error. Not sure where I read that. Thank you for pointing it out.

“Sgt Evans held back tears as she read an impact statement to the court which revealed she was still receiving medical treatment and had been forced to give up her rank after struggling in the aftermath of the attack.” BBC

I don’t know the British system. Do you mean the CPS would have written up the charges and not the officer herself? I thought CPS only put together the case to present in court.

That would mean that a victim of rape, for example, would have nothing to do with the charges against her assailant?

In any case, I support nonviolent direct action against property. Violence only happens against people.

15 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Absolutely the correct decision. Palestine Action are not a peaceful movement, it's a home and breeding ground for extremists who foment social division and antisemitism.

Breaking the back of a policewoman carrying out her duty with a sledgehammer, and damaging military aircraft that are an integral part of the defence of the United Kingdom is not an act of protesting, it is an act of  terrorism, and the Court of Appeal agreed.

Saying that the ruling is an affront to freedom of speech, is a lame and disingenuous deflection; people still have the right to protest in support of Palestine, but not behind the banner of a proscribed terrorist organisation that engages in acts of violence and criminal damage.

Do you consider me an extremist? Or an ex-extremist, from my writing?

The difference between terrorism and nonviolent direct action is transparency. Terrorists only claim responsibility after the fact, where violence was used. Nonviolent activists immediately accept responsibility for protest or sabotage or property destruction. Nobody hides.

Social division?!? You mean like those anti-immigrant nutjobs in UK and USA? I can't speak to antisemitism because I don't know a single other member of Palestine Action. I'm sure, with thousands in the high street, there are bound to be a few. But to say that PA itself is founded on antisemitism is ridiculous.

Just because an organisation has been 'proscribed'--for the most spurious of reasons, red paint on a military plane--does not mean a fig to me nor, obviously to a great number of Brits.