What I’m making here are my own observations – from what I know/my understanding of it as of today and not claiming to know all the facts – on the verdict as a non-legal expert; though I have a BA in law I never practiced law though I’m always quite interested in legal matters related to foreign policy and human rights. There is a link below to the BBC article I’m using as reference and I break down arguments in the article followed by my personal view on each, so here goes;
She said the judges recognised the proscription of an organisation like Palestine Acton was “highly controversial” and that it was supported by “many otherwise lawful citizens”.
But Baroness Carr added that it was “a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism”.
“It is not – as claimed – a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, operating transparently in the open,” she added.
- So supporters of the group are “unlawful citizens” whether or not they took participated in its activities, is that it? Are they considered terrorists or just bog standard criminals?
- Unlawful violence cannot automatically be translated to terrorism, there is context in terms severity of the act itself and the causal link. So “amounting to terrorism” is based on whose definition? So for example is throwing eggs or paint on a politician to be considered or forcefully disrupting public order or business operation an act of terrorism. Isn’t this taking the definition of terrorism to an extreme breaking point.
- Also is it now the approach that the suffragettes (and I have to admit I didn’t even know what the hell that was until I looked it up – so I added a link for those experiencing the same challenge…) has become the model of protests that are acceptable in this day and age, really? In this case we may need to open our history books because there may well be many terrorist amongst us since that time that also need to be prosecuted for engaging in “destructive violence” during demonstrations.
It is a covert organisation which operates with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury.
She said the group had neither disowned nor condemned three incidents which took place before the ban was implemented and were judged by ministers to amount to terrorism.
- Yes, a covert/high stakes “operation” to avoid detection with secret cells to throw paint or disrupt business operation; that’s terrorism? And if so why was this definition not articulated into law before these acts so people who who plan to engage in them know full well their rights/obligations before hand and why didn’t the UK government threaten the group of taking legal action if they didn’t abide by such laws?
- So how about states that engage in violence to murder civilians, destroy property and cause injury and never disowned nor condemned these incidents; are these by extension to be considered terrorists states, or do we skip that part? What is the context here; acts reflecting enragement of activists against what some consider state terrorism in Palestine with a UK government arguably complicit in supporting them – so now these acts of enragement are slapped with a terrorism label and the source of enragement is completely ignored? Judicial verdicts cannot be biased and should consider the entire context in reaching balanced decisions. If on the other hand it is argued that it is not the business of the court to consider details of the counter challenge why is it then relevant to make the case that the defence firms targeted are involved in UK national defence and assisting Ukraine; what’s that got to do with it or if not the Ukraine assistance connection or direct link to the defence industry the ruling would be different?
The Court of Appeal agreed, adding that the government was generally better placed than the courts in deciding matters of national security. While the court was the ultimate arbiter, judges had to recognise that ministers must have a wide margin within which to act in this complex field.
- This one is the icing on the cake for me; “the government was generally better placed than the courts in deciding matters of national security” & “ministers must have a wide margin within which to act in this complex field.” So in a nutshell what the UK Justice is suggesting is that after all this “back/forth” process they’ve decided that the justice system cannot question government actions on matters of national security even it directly affects British citizens? If that’s the case why didn’t they just throw out the case from day 1. More importantly this paragraph in of itself – in my opinion – puts into question (or more accurately “into doubt”) the legitimacy of the court itself which is the most troubling of all. When judicial verdicts/arguments become stained by political overtones democracy is not just in crisis, it doesn’t even exist.
Well, thats my take anyway.
**PS**: Note that when I post about stuff I feel passionate about I regularly come back and make further changes/additional comments to ensure I reflect my views properly/fairly.