Comment

Comment on Ban on Palestine Action was lawful, court of appeal rules

Upholding a corrupt law is not following the law.

…sussex.ac.uk/…/why-it-matters-whether-palestine-…

We can see clearly that these laws are not being applied to terrorists and instead being applied to anti-corruption organizations. This is an obvious perversion of the 2000 law. To use the law on this way is not only dishonest and morally corrupt, but it also infringes on the very foundation of democracy.

The only way you could rationalize using this law in this way is if you were defending a genocide which is exactly what is happening. I am not sure if you are actually an advocate of genocide, but by declaring it is lawful it shows that you are.

source

Sort:hotnew top

ohulancutash@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
A simplistic argument to be sure. In that linked article however,

But in the eyes of the law, in the UK, PA can be labelled as terrorists. Under the Terrorism Act 2000 this applies if they plan or carry out ‘serious damage to property’ if that is ‘designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public’ and when that is ‘for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.’

Therefore, following the law, proscription is lawful. It’s not the courts’ place to legislate. The fault is with MPs not judges.

source
- Doomsider@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Absolute garbage. You have a few people who attack a genocide factory and you have a bunch of people cheering them on. I totally get that people who commit property damage and hurt people deserve consequences but pretending they are a terrorist group is ridiculous.
  
  If you read the examples that lawmakers listed for the 2000 law, they all involve deaths. It is clear that property damage alone was not a major consideration. It is clear they are misinterpreting the law to try and make any political group terrorist if they decide. This is abhorrent behavior.
  
  What is even more insane is then jailing 3,000 more people that have nothing to do with this crime just because they support the sentiment that the government is covering up a genocide. Hauling away hundreds of peaceful protesters like absolute goons.
  
  I swear the inability to self reflect is going to kill us. As far as your point, the judges could have ruled differently. They could have easily upheld the decision instead of adding to the madness. This is the definition of poor governance and a complete breakdown of human rights.
  
  source
  - ohulancutash@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    They could have easily upheld the decision? Based on what law? The specific actions required under the Terrorism Act 2000 include serious property damage. Also serious violence against a person. Both of which apply here and led to the JTAC designation of Palestine Action as a terror group.
    
    While it’s egregious to call property damage “terrorism”, that is how the law stands. It is for legislators to change that, not the judiciary.
    
    source
    Doomsider@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Are you saying they couldn’t of ruled otherwise!? Judges have discretion. You argument is pretty ridiculous.
    
    …org.uk/…/breaking-down-the-court-of-appeal-judgm…
    
    source
    -> View More Comments