• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Israel-Palestine

Wilf Wolf said:
Why don’t the people who want to protest against what’s happening in Palestine create a new protest group that isn’t proscribed and doesn’t set out to cause millions of pounds of damage to planes? Presumably if such a new group was law abiding it wouldn’t be proscribed and could lawfully demonstrate.
Click to expand...
Those groups already exist and are not proscribed. There is already criminal legislation that can (and will) deal with the damage done to the planes at Brize Norton, just as the criminal damage carried out by the likes of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil was dealt with.

Jailed: Just Stop Oil protesters who targeted Manchester Airport | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk
www.theguardian.com

Five Just Stop Oil activists receive record sentences for planning to block M25

Campaigners receive longest ever sentences for non-violent protest after being convicted of conspiracy to cause public nuisance
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

There has to be a clear and unambiguous definition of terrorism that cannot be abused by any government. Many believe, and have done for some time, that the current definition is too wide...

  • Action or threat: Terrorism involves either taking action or threatening to take action.
  • Purpose: The action must be intended to influence the government, intimidate the public, or advance a cause.
  • Ideological motivation: The cause can be political, religious, racial, or ideological.
  • Specific actions: These include serious violence, damage to property, endangering life, creating a serious public risk, or disrupting electronic systems.
Click to expand...

This definition can clearly be applied to Palestine Action...but also to many other groups on both sides of the political spectrum. In this instance, there was no debate on whether to proscribe, it was done by Statutory Instrument. There may be legitimate reasons, but they have not been shared and it is reasonable to ask why other groups who have gone beyond merely inconveniencing people have not been proscribed but PA have. By proscribing PA, it becomes harder for people to do that.
There are ways in which government could strengthen existing laws should they wish to limit and punish the activities of direct action groups without defining it has terrorism which is (and should be) very emotive. Does the decision to proscribe PA protect the public from harm, or does it stray into repression? If people wish to argue the latter in public, they are now criminalised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top