Comment on Ban on Palestine Action was lawful, court of appeal rules
Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 days agoAbsolute 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.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 3 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.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 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…
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 3 days ago
Couldn’t have
The purpose of the Court of Appeals is to evaluate the lower court’s application of judicial discretion. The lower court’s decision is only overturned when it is determined there has been an “abuse of discretion” - that the judge’s discretion does not follow the law as laid down.
So in this process, the Appeal Court judge has to go back and see what is on the statute books, and make their judgement on a point of law, rather than discretion.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Judges are not arbitrators of truth and a different group of judges could have came to a different conclusion or perhaps even the same conclusion but for different reasons.
If you are arguing against this fact I am not sure what to say. On the other hand, if you are arguing that this has been decided so it is the law now I will kindly point out that judges can and do get it wrong. This is also not the end, unless they deny an appeal.