Close Menu
    Europa

    UK sagt

    Share.
    View 25 Comments

    25 Kommentare

    1. Chester_roaster on

      Good, and up the fine for „repeated“ arrestees. If they want to protest in support of a terrorist organisation, make it a very expensive hobby. 

      Edit: since people obviously don’t read the article the terrorist organisation here is „Palestine Action“ who have been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government. Showing or expressing support for Palestine Action is a crime in the UK
       

    2. Additional-Pie-9766 on

      Happy to pay a flight ticket for one of them to go protest in a Muslim country

    8. Eulaylia on

      You don’t want to hear this, but maybe don’t support Palestine Action.

      Maybe turn up to the protest and protest for Palestine, but drop the supporting a terrorist organisation??

      Maybe then shit like this won’t happen?

      What did you all expect when you turn up in support of a group that’s labelled as a terrorist organisation.

      It’s not hard? You’ll didn’t turn up in support of Isis when you wanted out of the middle east.

    9. CurvyCourgette on

      „Pro-Palestinian vigil“. It was a protest for Palestine Action, not for Palestine, shameful reporting.

    11. jtrimm98 on

      Maybe they should just repeal the proscription? It’d certainly be easier than making the police arrest hundreds of people 

    12. chadofchadistan on

      People are having themselves arrested for their right to hold peaceful protests. But I’m sure that further criminalizing their actions will certainly make them stop.

    14. Ashen233 on

      It is my understanding that this is the first case where a UK-based protest group was proscribed as a terrorist organisation solely for property damage, without violence against people.

      To me it raises questions about the threshold being lowered or reinterpreted politically.

      Other protest groups (e.g. climate activists, Fairford Five, animal rights saboteurs) have committed similar property damage and were not treated as terrorists, which suggests political selectivity, not legal consistency.

      If the government had clear, serious evidence of:
      Plans to harm people, Foreign direction, Espionage or state sabotage etc

      It could publish even a redacted summary, or present it in parliamentary or judicial review. But it hasn’t.

      That absence has led me to suspect the case may not rest on compelling evidence, but rather a strategic legal framing of protest as extremism.

    15. berejser on

      I didn’t think that Labour would be worse on civil liberties than the Conservatives, but here we are.

    17. Oycto on

      >Gets the biggest Labour majority in history

      >Opposition basically collapses

      >Proceeds to do nothing with it and actively harm labour’s position and standing with the people by introducing the OSA, digital IDs, and restricting protests against genocide

      What the fuck are they smoking in Westminster

    19. Secure-Albatross-894 on

      There was a thing in the 2010s, that people would say that „I defend your rights even if I disagree with you“, it was a nice sentiment, that got a lot of traction every time it was referenced.

      Now came the moment of truth, and it was a lie.

    20. Realistic-Stable2852 on

      Kier Starmer’s regime banning opposition to the genocide they’re complicit in. UK is pretty much on path to be like Russia or Belarus at this rate.

    22. Eaglesson on

      Looks like the UK will need some foreign intervention in the future to uphold democracy

    23. Equivalent-Role4632 on

      So that Charlie Kirk march was fine. Zero arrest but this is wrong.

    Leave A Reply