- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A British judge has sentenced four Palestine Action protesters as terrorists, handing them custodial sentences ranging from four to eight years.
The unprecedented ruling came despite jurors convicting them of criminal charges not connected to terrorism during the prosecution.
On Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Jeremy Johnson, added a “terrorism connection” to their offences.
In a preliminary ruling in March 2025, Johnson found an “appearance” of a terrorism connection in the case, as he said the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons. This information was withheld from the jury who convicted them.
Yea, no, it most definitely is not that simple. Top UK lawyers are not bullshiters:
Either give them a trial as terrorists or don’t.
It really is that simple. What is “terrorist connection”? Let’s see.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policing-act-2026-factsheets/crime-and-policing-act-2026-counter-terrorism-and-national-security-factsheet https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/129/5801129en.pdf
“”“The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 introduced a requirement for courts to consider whether a ‘terrorist connection’ is an aggravating factor when sentencing for a specific set of non-terrorism offences.”“”
So is “terrorist connection” an offense? No. It’s an aggravating factor.
“”“any offence is capable of being subject to a finding or a determination of a terrorist connection, if the offence is not a terrorism offence and is punishable with a maximum sentence of more than 2 years”“”
“”“maximum sentence for criminal damage is 10 years”“”
It’s all as clear as it can be.
The offense is criminal damage. The jury said they are guilty. The sentence can be more than 2 years. The judge can consider terrorist connection as a aggravating factor. He did.
Jury is not involved in sentencing. Nothing was withheld.
You can argue that The Counter-Terrorism Act and the whole notion of “terrorist connection as an aggravating factor” is wrong and that only jury should be able to determine if someone has a connection to terrorist organization but you definitely can’t argue that the judge is adding some charges here without informing the jury. This is simply not what is happening. They are not even bending the rules here. They are doing exactly what the law allows them to do.
Other commenters: “fascists rewrote the law to allow grave miscarriages of justice that violate the very constitutional foundations of a free society.”
You: “nothing to worry about here guys, everything is perfectly legal. It’s not like “they’re just following the law” literally lead to the Holocaust or something.”
Trouble reading much?
OK so let us know the next time you get a speeding ticket, so I can tack on some terrorism bonus time for you to serve, long after the jury has spoken about your guilt in speeding.
All I need to do is show you have any kind of tangential connection to anything I call terror, and I can turn your small sentence into a large one.
That sounds like the kind of shit China and Russia do. Anyone wants to tolerate that shit happening here in the West is no longer welcome to live in the West, IMO.
This argument makes no sense and only shows your total lack of understanding here.
Of course you’ll say that. You’re exactly someone who should not be welcome here.
Good thing you have nothing to say about it then.
I’m not “arguing” anything in front of any court and I’m not saying the judge did not follow the letter of the law. Top UK lawyers are making the case that as tried this case poses grave constitutional threats. And they’re going to litigate this as far as it goes.
What I am saying is that what you’re presenting as a slam dunk …isn’t. This is unprecedented (the law is from 2020 and it’s the first time it’s used in such a case in such a way) and serious people are raising serious issues.
EDIT: oh and by the way, at the end of the day, legal schmegal, the Palestine Action people are actually morally squarely on the right. They are not terrorists. They are activists putting their lives between Elbit’s butcher machines and Palestinian genocide victims. The cop who got injured should not have been in that Elbit factory because Elbit should not be allowed to build genocide machines period. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter really does apply here, and these are indeed freedom fighters. History will vindicate them. One day, everyone will have always been against this, but these folks will actually have the receipts. Tiocfaidh ár lá.
Maybe they are, but as someone born and raised in Central/Eastern Europe, they are - at best - morally dubious. Or incredibly easy to manipulate.
Palestine Action Plans Sabotage on UK Air Bases Used for Ukrainian Pilots Training
Pro-Palestinian activists reportedly destroy military equipment intended for Ukraine
What I find morally dubious is why Ukrainians are put in the position to collaborate with industries complicit in genocide.
Russia is not the only barbarian in town.
“What I find morally dubious is why [literally any NATO country] is put in the position to collaborate with industries complicit in school shootings”, since they’re using AR16 rifles, 5.56 or 9mm ammo, Glock or CZ pistols, etc.
The industry makes the tools, the governments (or, well, individuals) decide how to use them. If the tools are well made and have high capabilities, I want Ukraine to have access to them regardless of the fact that some traitorous, murderous, corrupt dictators are also using them elsewhere.
You make an argument that chooses a priority: “regardless of the fact that”. Guess what, other people make their own priority arguments where they make their own “regardless of the fact that” calculations. If you get to call other people “morally dubious” for not following your absolute priority, so do they get to call you “morally dubious” for not following theirs. Then the conversation becomes “which genocide matters more, Putin’s or Netanyahu’s”. Is that the conversation you really want to be having though?
Here’s what I say instead and you should be able to see the pragmatism in this point of view:
Ukraine should have the tools to fight for its freedom which is why it should not be put by its allies in the position to have to navigate suppliers that are politically toxic and a source of uncertainty and division in its support base (the conflicting moral priority arguments in my first paragraph).
The cold hard logic is that Elbit is a politically toxic, politically compromised supplier that comes with unnecessary uncertainty and risk. The fact that there are large sections of western populations that hold very legitimate grievances against them is very much an opening for Russian propaganda and manipulation. The UK should not expose Ukraine to any of that.
So if you really care about Ukraine having a shot, you should simply demand the exclusion of Israeli linked suppliers. They are a strategic liability for Ukraine. It’s just not worth the drama and uncertainty from the point of view of Ukraine focusing on what matters to them and for sure nobody needs to be giving Putin any more talking points about western hypocrisy.
You missed my point.
There are no “suppliers not ‘complicit’ in genocide” due to the variety of equipment Israel is using. One way or another, every major military industrial complex member from the West is there.
I’m saying that just as you wouldn’t say that Ikea is complicit in murder because someone used one of their knives, you shouldn’t say that the ammunition or hardware industry is complicit in genocide because someone is using their gear.
The arms industry is far from black and white. It’s a spectrum of shitty grey. Some part of that spectrum is made up of actual Israeli companies like Elbit. That’s not some neutral “IKEA” that “happens” to sell something that someone “happens” to use to do something bad. It’s a company that’s literally part of the military-industrial complex of a genocidal apartheid state. That’s a part of the shitty spectrum of the arms industry that Ukraine should not be put in a position to depend on.
Or to put it differently: if Ukraine is made to depend on those motherfuckers, don’t clutch your pearls if the consequences (political blowback and uncertainty due to direct action from pro-palestinian activism and movements in the west) of that really bad decision end up affecting Ukrainian capacity. Don’t blame the activists trying to grind the gears of Israel’s genocide to a halt. They were going to do that anyway AND THEY ARE MORALLY CORRECT TO TRY TO DO THAT. If that inadvertently ends up hurting the Ukrainian war effort, blame Ukraine’s allies for exposing Ukraine to that strategic liability. Do you understand what I’m saying?
Or if you want it all the way down to brass tacks: Palestinians don’t have an obligation to die for Ukrainans. Palestine solidarity actions in the West don’t have an obligation to Ukraine to facilitate the industry that actively participates in Palestinian genocide. If the West’s Ukraine armament strategy depends on such a fucked up moral catastrophe and also depends on their citizens going along with that moral catastrophe, the West’s armaments strategy is just plain fucking stupid because it will keep producing friction and uncertainty and they should fucking do better.
Except it is. We’re talking about some basic legal concepts here: charges, verdict, sentencing and aggravating factors. To claim that the judge withheld something from the jurors and applied additional charges after the verdict is simply a lie. He applied aggravating factors during the sentencing. Something the law clearly allows him to do in this case.
Now I’m sure some lawyers will argue that the whole concept of terrorist connection as aggravating factor is wrong but this is not what this post or articles claim. They claim something that is clearly false.
I’m also not talking who is and isn’t morally right. If you want to address what I’m talking here about (is terrorist connection additional charge or an aggravating factor?) then I’m happy to listen. If you want to talk about something else then please reply to someone else.