Police say offences include assault and support for a proscribed group as 1,500 demonstrate in Parliament Square

More than 425 people have been arrested at the largest demonstration yet opposing the proscription of Palestine Action.

Defend Our Juries, who organised the demonstrations, said there were 1,500 sign-holders in Parliament Square on Saturday at a fresh protest in London against the ban. At the previous major demonstration last month, 532 people were arrested for taking part. Participants gathered in Parliament Square by 1pm, many holding signs that read: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

At just after 9pm, the Metropolitan police said it had made more than 425 arrests. The Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, Claire Smart, who led the operation, said: “In carrying out their duties today, our officers have been punched, kicked, spat on and had objects thrown at them by protesters. It is intolerable that those whose job it is to enforce the law and keep people safe – in this case arresting individuals committing offences under the Terrorism Act – should be subject to this level of abuse.”

  • OboTheHobo@ttrpg.networkEnglish
    6·
    2 days ago

    Im not saying what they did isn’t illegal. I’m saying it’s not terrorism. This is like if someone was charged with murder and punished for it only to turn out all they did was rob a store and you’re like “well akshually ☝️🤓 they’re a criminal so it’s fine”

    • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.comEnglish
      1·
      22 hours ago

      I mean, it may not match how you use that word, because you might think about bin Laden when hearing that word “terrorism”, but let’s see how the word is actually defined:

      Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.[1]

      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

      • OboTheHobo@ttrpg.networkEnglish
        4·
        22 hours ago

        So let’s look at these requirements:

        • violence: not really. Vandalism and destruction of equipment aren’t violence, to my knowledge PA has not harmed or attacked anyone.

        • non combatants: they targeted weapon shipments and military equipment. While I suppose you could argue the UK military aren’t combatants as they aren’t part of the war directly, but honestly that point is entirely moot given that they didn’t target people.

        • political and ideological aims: sure, they are a political activist organization. Obviously that alone doesn’t make them terrorists.

        So, even by what Wikipedia defines as the “broadest” definition, not terrorists.

        I mean, at an absolute minimum, terrorism requires violence against people, which they did not do. They targeted planes and other military equipment. That’s not terrorism no matter how much damage they caused.