High Court Rules...
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
-
- Tags
- palestine protests
The co-founder of Palestine Action has won a legal challenge to the home secretary’s decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws.
The proscription of Palestine Action, which categorised it alongside the likes of Islamic State, was the first of a direct action protest group and attracted widespread condemnation as well as a civil disobedience campaign defying the ban, during which more than 2,000 people have been arrested. [Today] three judges, led by the president of the king’s bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, ruled that the decision to proscribe the group was unlawful.
Read the full report by our legal affairs correspondent Haroon Siddique here:
The proscription of Palestine Action, which categorised it alongside the likes of Islamic State, was the first of a direct action protest group and attracted widespread condemnation as well as a civil disobedience campaign defying the ban, during which more than 2,000 people have been arrested. [Today] three judges, led by the president of the king’s bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, ruled that the decision to proscribe the group was unlawful.
Read the full report by our legal affairs correspondent Haroon Siddique here:
I'm sure @motorbiking will be along to tell us why the High Court is wrong...
The judges have shown common sense in their ruling - the threshold for proscribing a group is far too low.
Although the state is appealing it, I wonder what will happen to all those who were arrested?
In theory if the ban was illegal, then they were illegally arrested.
I suspect a deal will be done whereby all charges/convictions wiped but no action allowed to be taken against the state.
Allied with the failure to convict over the Elbit Systems factory break-in where the argument made that committing a crime to prevent a greater crime was essentially accepted by a jury, civil disobedience has thankfully been successful in reigning in draconian state measures.
Although the state is appealing it, I wonder what will happen to all those who were arrested?
In theory if the ban was illegal, then they were illegally arrested.
I suspect a deal will be done whereby all charges/convictions wiped but no action allowed to be taken against the state.
Allied with the failure to convict over the Elbit Systems factory break-in where the argument made that committing a crime to prevent a greater crime was essentially accepted by a jury, civil disobedience has thankfully been successful in reigning in draconian state measures.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,269
- Reaction score
- 6,017
- Country
I don't think they are wrong.
It will remain outlawed for now as the government intends to take the case to the Court of Appeal.
Don't get too excited.
You wouldn't be saying that if they had decided differently
You wouldn't be saying that if they had decided differently
Pretty much
yes u are right
Same goes for you if it was the opposite way around
If that was the case, I'd be saying they'd misinterpreted the law...
But they haven't so they aren't 'fruit cakes'...
They are upholding everyone's rights against illegal state action.
If you want to live in what would effectively be a police state then fine, but most don't!
They misinterpreted the law so imo they are a trio of fruitcakes
As to your other comments load of OTT nonsense imo
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,269
- Reaction score
- 6,017
- Country
I'd like to live where organised criminals don't destroy important military equipment, target and harass legitimate business owners and feel its ok to cause millions of pounds worth of damage in the name of the cause.
Err...
The court said they aren't criminals...
Would you prefer to live in a country where the court ignores the law when it suits you?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,269
- Reaction score
- 6,017
- Country
You think the court gave them an exemption from being prosecuted for criminal acts in the name of the cause?
don't be daft
Carry on believing whatever guff you believe in...
And live in ignorance!
Hint: There is a difference between upholding the law and having an opinion that the law is wrong
