If Lucy Connolly can get three years for a tweet,(and there are plenty of other examples of two tier justice), I’d say these sentences are far too short.
What is really exasperating is knowing that had the attack been by 'right wing' protestors, the exact same idiots would be complaining that it signified the return of fascism and the sentences were totally inadequate. They seem unable to see or hear themselves. The blind fanaticism is frightening.
For once I disagree. My definition of terrorism involves serious threat of injury or death to members of the public or other innocent people. Blowing up trains or buses or shopping centres is different from breaking into an arms factory in the middle of the night when you know no-one is there. The activists went to destroy things that kill innocent people, not to hurt people themselves. They absolutely should be tried for criminal damage and for the attack on the police officer, but terrorism?
This left wing government has stretched the definition too far - even elderly protesters holding up signs are accused of terrorism now.
Then you wouldn't take any account of the planning that went into this (which the Judge went into in great details). If you look at how acts of terrorism are constructed then these people fit that description entirely.
But they did hurt people, whether they planned to or not, with a political aim. And if pro Israel people went into a firm that supplied to Hamas to destroy and intimidate, the same law would apply.
The IRA would call to give time for the police to evacuate areas after bomb threats, under your definition of terrorism, any deaths wouldn't have been deliberate, would you consider them to be terrorists?
That is a good point. My understanding of the warnings is that they were notoriously late and inaccurate (wrong place, wrong time, even wrong telephone numbers) so they weren’t really working hard at ensuring people weren’t killed. So no, if people were killed or hurt under the circumstances of blowing up buildings in the middle of the day with little and/or inaccurate warnings, then that I would still call it terrorism. A bit like putting up a fence that keeps a rabid dog in but not making sure it works properly - still makes you guilty of allowing the dog out to do harm.
I think nuance could be argued there, but generally they gave a warning but it would be very tight and would rely on the police responding rapidly and getting everyone out which didn't always happen. But for these 4, they went to damage property and carried weapons - I think it's typical of modern times that people think if they have a moral imperative, they shouldn't face consequences. And these days, Israel and the environment allow people to think they're the good guys regardless of what bad things they do.
But there are consequences to destroying property, which includes prison time. Fine. I agree that some people seem to think their crimes are special because they have “pure” motives, which I think is dodgy at best. I just don’t think that terrorism includes things that aren’t designed to hurt and kill normal going-about-their-daily-business people, and that expanding the terrorism laws to include these politically motivated but essentially well meaning people is right. Because terrorism offences include things like keeping them on remand, which these days can mean being in prison for years, it includes not telling the defence what the charges are or what evidence you have, adding extra years onto their tariff, and a whole raft of things that we allow because we abhor the idea of people deliberately killing and maiming innocent other people in order to scare us into political acts we wouldn’t otherwise consider.
By all means try these people and put them in prison for their offences once they are tried, but to call them terrorists and try them as such is very suspect I think.
I agree that the law, criminal cases and judgements are politicized by governments, the left and right.
But be weary of falling into the tribal trap of agreeing with decisions from governments and the courts that fit your bias and angry with ones that do not.
The modern left: happy to see anti mass migration demonstrators, pro lifers, the truck convoy in Canada and the January 6th , 2021 protesters in DC all feel the hammer of the law.
Some elements of the right and those who dislike the modern left: happy to see Pro Palestine demonstrators and animal rights activists feel the hammer of the law.
As for me: I am always concerned when governments target activists from the left to the right whether I agree with their issue or not. I remember COINTELPRO and the McLibel case where creating division and lies dominate. The same government that brings more surveillance, Digital ID and arrests for online posts should not be trusted.
Activists that damage property should accept appropriate charges. But the Filbert 4 are no more terrorists than the January 6th protesters were. Pretty sure a fair amount of activists I know from left to right will be accused of violence and terrorism with Bill C-9 passing in Canada and most likely a few more bills along the lines of censorship and restrictions.
No one in Palestine Action has attacked a synagogue. Israelis weapons companies: yes.
I think the charge of terrorism is irrelevant, for me it’s more that they caused damage. As regards the Palestine protestors- I don’t know about where you are, but in London and other cities, Jews are being terrorised regularly and there have been many threats of violence. Jews are afraid to walk the streets when a march is happening and there’s been one in London every week since Oct 7th.
But at least we can part on a friendly note 😁- I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence. And although I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I wonder how much our govt provokes trouble in order to have an excuse to create ever more draconian legislation.
I agree that we shouldn’t be tribal. But we’re talking about criminal damage and physical violence here. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that it would be acceptable for pro Palestine demonstrators to smash up a synagogue because they are against Israel.
If Lucy Connolly can get three years for a tweet,(and there are plenty of other examples of two tier justice), I’d say these sentences are far too short.
Oh, no, our beloved PM said that there is no such thing as two tier policing. We all have wild imagination (unlike him who has none).
What is really exasperating is knowing that had the attack been by 'right wing' protestors, the exact same idiots would be complaining that it signified the return of fascism and the sentences were totally inadequate. They seem unable to see or hear themselves. The blind fanaticism is frightening.
They’ve been reading too much Marcuse
They can read?!
😂
Good to see the judiciary at least handing down fairly stiff sentences, like TT I agree they are not long enough.
For once I disagree. My definition of terrorism involves serious threat of injury or death to members of the public or other innocent people. Blowing up trains or buses or shopping centres is different from breaking into an arms factory in the middle of the night when you know no-one is there. The activists went to destroy things that kill innocent people, not to hurt people themselves. They absolutely should be tried for criminal damage and for the attack on the police officer, but terrorism?
This left wing government has stretched the definition too far - even elderly protesters holding up signs are accused of terrorism now.
Then you wouldn't take any account of the planning that went into this (which the Judge went into in great details). If you look at how acts of terrorism are constructed then these people fit that description entirely.
It’s terrorism because it’s planned?
Take a look at the Judges sentencing remarks
But they did hurt people, whether they planned to or not, with a political aim. And if pro Israel people went into a firm that supplied to Hamas to destroy and intimidate, the same law would apply.
Well I think terrorism is pretty much defined by the deliberate intention to kill and main innocent people. Anything else is covered by other laws.
And yes, the same laws should apply without fear or favour.
The IRA would call to give time for the police to evacuate areas after bomb threats, under your definition of terrorism, any deaths wouldn't have been deliberate, would you consider them to be terrorists?
And I would want to know who's defining "innocent"
That is a good point. My understanding of the warnings is that they were notoriously late and inaccurate (wrong place, wrong time, even wrong telephone numbers) so they weren’t really working hard at ensuring people weren’t killed. So no, if people were killed or hurt under the circumstances of blowing up buildings in the middle of the day with little and/or inaccurate warnings, then that I would still call it terrorism. A bit like putting up a fence that keeps a rabid dog in but not making sure it works properly - still makes you guilty of allowing the dog out to do harm.
I think nuance could be argued there, but generally they gave a warning but it would be very tight and would rely on the police responding rapidly and getting everyone out which didn't always happen. But for these 4, they went to damage property and carried weapons - I think it's typical of modern times that people think if they have a moral imperative, they shouldn't face consequences. And these days, Israel and the environment allow people to think they're the good guys regardless of what bad things they do.
But there are consequences to destroying property, which includes prison time. Fine. I agree that some people seem to think their crimes are special because they have “pure” motives, which I think is dodgy at best. I just don’t think that terrorism includes things that aren’t designed to hurt and kill normal going-about-their-daily-business people, and that expanding the terrorism laws to include these politically motivated but essentially well meaning people is right. Because terrorism offences include things like keeping them on remand, which these days can mean being in prison for years, it includes not telling the defence what the charges are or what evidence you have, adding extra years onto their tariff, and a whole raft of things that we allow because we abhor the idea of people deliberately killing and maiming innocent other people in order to scare us into political acts we wouldn’t otherwise consider.
By all means try these people and put them in prison for their offences once they are tried, but to call them terrorists and try them as such is very suspect I think.
Thanks, Andrew
Great analysis.
I think those sentences were too short
Dusty
It is the typical example of interpreting the laws like the devil reads the Bible.
I agree that the law, criminal cases and judgements are politicized by governments, the left and right.
But be weary of falling into the tribal trap of agreeing with decisions from governments and the courts that fit your bias and angry with ones that do not.
The modern left: happy to see anti mass migration demonstrators, pro lifers, the truck convoy in Canada and the January 6th , 2021 protesters in DC all feel the hammer of the law.
Some elements of the right and those who dislike the modern left: happy to see Pro Palestine demonstrators and animal rights activists feel the hammer of the law.
As for me: I am always concerned when governments target activists from the left to the right whether I agree with their issue or not. I remember COINTELPRO and the McLibel case where creating division and lies dominate. The same government that brings more surveillance, Digital ID and arrests for online posts should not be trusted.
Thanks for the reply.
Activists that damage property should accept appropriate charges. But the Filbert 4 are no more terrorists than the January 6th protesters were. Pretty sure a fair amount of activists I know from left to right will be accused of violence and terrorism with Bill C-9 passing in Canada and most likely a few more bills along the lines of censorship and restrictions.
No one in Palestine Action has attacked a synagogue. Israelis weapons companies: yes.
People trust governments at their own peril.
I think the charge of terrorism is irrelevant, for me it’s more that they caused damage. As regards the Palestine protestors- I don’t know about where you are, but in London and other cities, Jews are being terrorised regularly and there have been many threats of violence. Jews are afraid to walk the streets when a march is happening and there’s been one in London every week since Oct 7th.
But at least we can part on a friendly note 😁- I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence. And although I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I wonder how much our govt provokes trouble in order to have an excuse to create ever more draconian legislation.
I agree that we shouldn’t be tribal. But we’re talking about criminal damage and physical violence here. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that it would be acceptable for pro Palestine demonstrators to smash up a synagogue because they are against Israel.