This is their way of subduing the populace even more. If politicians and corporations were actually scared to fuck people over, we'd live in a much better world.
Both outcomes benefit them. Either it scares and subdues everyone or does the exact opposite which gives them even more 'justification' for crackdowns.
again it seems like they got their terrorism charge, so it didn’t matter what the person did.
i find the argument that we should never do anything they could use to justify their fascism ridiculous, when we are talking about a live demonstration of said fascism being justified with non violent resistance.
Kill thousands of Palestinian children, including by picking infants up by the ankle and swinging them hard as you can into brick walls, and impaling pregnant women through the stomach and leaving them to die in the dirt?
The British government paved the way for those settlers, don't forget. They assumed control of the land, kicked out the natives and beckoned for all the Israelites to enter, who, obviously, started murdering anyone still in Palestine. This chapter of their cruelty started in 1948 and Britain's government, who has always been a piece of shit, made it so.
That's crazy. Fortunately the world is full of countries like China, the US, Germany, Russia... you know, big places where everything has run on compassion for others and doing the right thing for the last hundred plus years.
It's just some strange tribalism I think. I think in their mind you have to be supporting another empire instead, it seems some are unable to understand that you support none of them.
I'm lost on how so many people seemed to take me listing the countries I did followed by the description of them as having "run on compassion for others and doing the right thing for the last hundred plus years" and seen anything other than sarcasm.
All of the listed countries have been responsible for the deaths of mass numbers of innocent civilians, and kids, and nuns, and nuns carrying infants who were carrying baby kittens over the last 100 or so years. Fuck, more than one of them has been responsible for that in the last few months.
In my case it was a combination of it being hard to read sarcasm online in many cases, especially if you are not already familiar with the author, along with the number of times I run into "You don't support A? That means you support B!" in political discussions.
I covered a few bases and was very wordy in my other comment to you, but otherwise yeah that really did not land for the majority. FWIW sarcasm was my first take.
I find it more than a bit ironic that after I list many other countries who have done and/or are doing tons of awful things you say that.
What strange tribalism? What tribe? Why do you think I'm imagining anyone is supporting any empire? I said nothing positive about anyone. The entire point was "Yeah, seems like the bulk of the world is run by awful cunts. Let's have a pint."
... and that means I'm in some sort of tribe? Do we at least get fancy hats?
Edit: each of these are incorrect, and more wild theories based on misconceptions than simply 'sarcasm that missed the mark'. We were the ones with the misconceptions, not Abyssian.
I get it, if you mean I'm being unnecessarily narrow-minded: there's no need to single out one or two cruel empires when there are many.. All of the most globally influential countries and many smaller ones are ethically awful and cause suffering, that it may be easier to count the ones that are wholly kind and benevolently ruled.
If you are subtly referencing the destruction of native civilisations for the unification of the newcomers: Many countries like Australia, Russia and Greenland (to name a few, perhaps less known ones) have natives a.k.a. people who lived there first that are horribly oppressed and shunned, but let's not try to erase the most significant acts of evil in modern history, condoned by a massive portion of the local population. One wrongful act does not excuse or justify another.
If you're referring to the systemic hate of Jews in those countries and most of Europe: please remember that the ethnoreligion of Judaism, the cult of Zion and the nationality of Israel are not the same.
I wasn't making factual claims of any certain incidents. I was using (sadly very light)hyperbole to make a point. There are databases of atrocities against Palestinians you can look into online. I stopped having the stomach for it a while ago. The things mentioned in my comment aren't specific incidents, but they are the level of evil that has been documented many times over.
It’s vandalism. It’s property damage. It’s rude as fuck. But it’s not terrorism. Trying Americans for protests calling it terrorism is a form of terrorism.
It is. I'd consider it a form of stochastic terrorism. Stochastic terrorism is the public demonization of a person or group through mass media that incites a violent act which is statistically predictable but whose specific perpetrator and timing cannot be predicted.
So the government labeling anti-fascists as terrorists, or people that support an end to the Palestinian genocide as terrorists could fall under the definition of stochastic terrorism. We have the public demonization of anti-facists via policy and yellow journalism, which leads to those people speaking out against fascism to be targeted by the police/government for exercising their right to free speech and assembly. The anti genocide protesters spreading red paint and breaking windows are vandals for sure, but I wouldn't go so far as to label them as terrorists. Labeling them as terrorists creates an opening for the government to deny them freedom via criminal charges worse than any crime they are actually guilty of.
They also called paint £200k in damage. And broken windows £500k. Just utterly insane figures to inflate the seriousness of what's just basic vandalism of a building.
It was watered down 25 years ago to include property damage but has never been used until, surprise surprise, Zionist genocide is being inconvenienced.
Yeah, I always have to remind myself that these repressive stories from the UK are being done under the government elected in to stop the conservatives. Where do the more conservative parties have to go when this is the baseline of the center left?
don't need to, my democracy (Canada) threw out your puppet Pierre Poilievre and the sedition plot for Alberta is failing, now the conservatives are becoming more irrelevant by the day as the old folks die off, why should i die for your country when that's your responsibility. but rest assured, if any of your lead brain dumbfuck soldiers come to my country under donalds order, i will happily find ways of getting rid of them like other wars they've failed to win.
if this is your response then you deserve to be a debt slave you coward.
Canada is absolutely not safe from PP and our closest to actual left party was effectively destroyed through this, and now the liberals are shifting further and further right
lol nah, the cons are diving deeper in the poles and the ndp is rising, theyre dieing as moderate cons flock to either ndp for workers rights or carney for civil order. only the maple magas and con tribalist that cant change are still red.
American, considering your first response and you pointing a finger at me tells me you didnt care to check where im from hypocrite, if your going to be useless, just keep your mouth shut.
same shit diff country brits are doing the same thing as america now, but you are right in that i didn't check cuz this sound exactly like what donald is doing. nothing about my original point has changed.
In the UK the state can deprive a person of their UK citizenship when they are labeled a terrorist by the state. Guess what will happen next to these people.
Craven, servile authorities with no morals or balls might be able to stop people finding ways to voice their horror at the fact gutless IDF fuckholes mass murder Palestinian babies and children, but they'll never stop people knowing Netanyahu's an inhuman cunt, who deserves to be thrown into a deep, deep pit for the rest of his life, for ordering it.
If the penalty is so steep for minor offenses, they will encourage real terror. Why wouldn’t the next ones just blow up the bank if they’re going be charged as terrorists regardless? It’s not a charge you ever recover from.
"Sentenced as terrorists" is not what is really happening here. As I said before, when a crime carries over 2 years of prison (and property damage of 200k does) the judge can consider "terrorist connection" as an aggravating factor. They belong to Palestine Action which is considered terrorist organization in UK. This proscription was recently upheld by Court of Appeals.
They are not being sentenced for being members of Palestine Action. The court is considering "terrorist connection" aggravating factor in property damage conviction. If the aggravating factor is added it will have an impact on the conditions of their parole, not the sentence itself*.
*Edit: it actually does affect the final sentence, like any other aggravating factor.
The word "terrorist" is not merely a technical designator. It is highly emotionally charged and political. It is a word that evokes hundreds of victims in blind attacks on trains or on buildings and aeroplanes. It evokes fanaticism and destructiveness, frothing hatred and irrational bloodlust. "We do not negotiate with terrorists." Terrorists are the villains in every movie ever. In the wider society, a "terrorist connection" is a connection to all that.
So splitting the legal hairs here is at best irrelevant. We live in a society not a courtroom. The government has slapped the Big Scary Word on a thing it shouldn't have.
And even if this government gets all the benefits of the doubt (personally I really don't think they should) because they are trying their best to balance between impossible political attractors (personally I think they are just enablers of a genocidal apartheid regime for political expediency), the next one or the one after the next one will not hesitate to use the Big Scary Word not as a technical designator but as a political sledgehammer.
So splitting the legal hairs here is at best irrelevant. We live in a society not a courtroom. The government has slapped The Big Scary Word on a thing it shouldn’t have.
I think it is important to to know what's happening and not just repeat narrative coming from one side. People argued with me that "terrorist connection" means people are being convicted of additional crimes without the knowledge of a jury. Now you're claiming the government is calling them terrorists while the "terrorist organization" proscription for Palestine Action was upheld by Court of Appeals. Palestine Action is using the threat of serious damage to property to intimidate people and advance ideological cause. They are publishing a "target map: https://targetmap.org/map. This is pretty much the definition of a terrorist organization according to UK laws.
We all would like UK government to sanction Israel but few governments in the world are willing to do that. Groups like Palestine Action try to change the status quo by committing crimes.I don't think terrorist organization proscription is an overreach by the government here. I think that instead of being intimidated by it we should admit that yes, in this case, we do support the terrorist.
That's a circular definition: the Labour government passed laws that defined Palestine Action as terrorists so therefore they are terrorist because the courts said they fit the description of the laws.
The other thing that you seem to have forfeited is a sense of proportionality. So, if you want to go around declaring yourself ...a "terrorist sympathizer", don't let me stop you. I'll keep on insisting that Palestine Action should have never been proscribed in the first place. All of the craziness follows from that first moment of Labour stupidity and overreach.
Ok, that's fair. For me the definition used for the proscription doesn't sound like something tailor made to fit Palestine Action nor does it look like a tool for squashing dissidents. I would say that is a group of people operated covertly to intimidate businesses supporting Palestine (for example damaging businesses providing relief to Palestine and hosting a map with targets, encouraging people to do the same) I wouldn't hesitate to call that terrorism. I think it's fine if you're worried about being called a "terrorist sympathizer". I don't really mind that. Palestine Action is committing crimes to achieve their goals and I'm not going to pretend they don't.
You might want to read the judgement then, because Johnson has a very different understanding - he very specifically names the Suffragettes as not being terrorists, despite their use of public and personal bombings and arson attacks to intimidate and influence policy. The law is not being applied equally, it is being used as a bludgeon against those who oppose genocide.
I don't have that much time so I read the justification for terrorist connection aggravating factor and it's exactly what I said here. I don't see anything about Suffragettes in there. Can you point me to the part that talks about it?
Sorry, rereading I was completely unclear about which case I was refering to, and got my conflicts of interest mixed up - I meant the proscription judgement (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721?query=AMMORI&court=ewca%2Fciv) and Johnson wasn't on this panel, his judgement is just based on it. The Suffragettes actions are specifically brought up as "civil disobedience" rather than "direct action", which is a distinction the proscription kinda hinges on.
you agree with the practice of inflating the cost of crime so that any action can be considered terrorism? seems a bit much for me and backing of government oppression.
terrorism has a meaning, and is not dependent on amounts of property damage.
this is the same thing as redefining illegal immigrants as enemy combatants so you can suspend habeous corpus, and other human rights
Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires that the court treats your offending’s terrorist connection as an aggravating factor. That means it increases the seriousness of the offence
I will impose the shortest
custodial term that is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
That is to say, yes, the terrorism connection absolutely increases the severity of the sentence.
On top of that, since the jury were unaware that this was being considered, and not allowed to consider motivations in their verdict, there seems to be a fundamental rupture in the process of natural justice.
I hope that this case is revisited, and the sentences reduced, because there is an element of scapegoating apparent, which is not just.
That is to say, yes, the terrorism connection absolutely increases the severity of the sentence.
There's no such thing as "severity of the sentence". They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.
On top of that, since the jury were unaware that this was being considered, and not allowed to consider motivations in their verdict, there seems to be a fundamental rupture in the process of natural justice.
As with "severity of the sentence" you don't know what you're talking about. That's not how any of it works.
I wasn't using legal language. By "the severity of the sentence", I just meant the length or onerousness of the sentence.
They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.
A flat lie, if you claim to have read the judgement, since it says:
I will impose the shortest custodial term that is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, taking account of aggravating and mitigating features.
Then, your ad hominem response "you don't know what you're talking about" renders your argument void. Try again, if you like. But I'd advise you to save face and admit your mistakes at this point.
You fucking legend.
So few, so vanishingly few people on internet forums remain open-minded enough to change their view, on anything even when presented with incontrovertible evidence. I like to think I'm one of these few, and now I think you are too. Good on you.
I'm a scientist by education, and so I value nothing more, intellectually, than being able to admit you have more to learn.
I couldn't possibly have more respect for you than I do now after reading your last comment.
As an aside, I find your other comments to be really incisive, and you've made me see this issue in a new light. Thanks to you, I've read the entire judgement, and realised that these people are far from heroes, the issue isn't black and white, and Corner probably deserves most of his sentence. Which was soothing to my anger, because this isn't as egregious a miscarriage of justice as I previously thought. It's still a partisan reading of the law though, in my opinion. But it doesn't seem to overstep the bounds, just burgeon upon them.
The terrorist connection aggravating factor can be applied if the damage is over 5k. Even if 200k is exaggerated I don't think providing the real number would help them.
How can it be an aggravating factor if there was no terrorist connection at the time of the offence? The proscription of PA wasn’t backdated, and the vandalism happened before that, right?
""" offence found to have a terrorist connection by definition in new sub-paragraph (3E), the offender will be subject to the
release provisions in section 247A of the 2003 Act (for extended sentences for offences
which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, release will be at the end of the
full custodial term; for all other sentences release will be at the discretion of the Parole
Board from the two-thirds point of the custodial term)."""
So I believe what "terrorist connection" aggravating factor does for conviction in crimes like property damage is that you can apply for parole after 2/3 of the full sentence. From what I read it definitely doesn't extend the sentence - the maximum sentence is still the same as maximum sentence for property damage. Not sure if the judge is forced to apply maximum sentence or not if terrorist connection is found. Can't find any info on that.
EDIT: I read the sentencing and minimum sentence is not affected, just the parole conditions.
It would extend the time spend in prison, not the sentence. The sentence is the maximum time someone can be held in prison. This is not extended. Parole rules determine the minimal possible time someone has to spend in prison. This is what changed.
I'm clearly not defending anything here, just explaining what happened. Don't confuse people by mixing legal terms.
Ah, you're a world of imagination type. Sorry, I operate in real world effects, not in theoretical constructs that are totally different except for in what they actually do.
Like, I understand wanting to advocate for something you're passionate about and passing out flyers or even holding signa or something. But when you throw paint at art, block roads, generally be an asshole to people just going about life you're
A. Not going to even remotely convince me to support your cause, in fact it will probably more likely make me be against it.
B. Piss me off because you're destroying amazing artwork (or whatever) and I'll hate your cause.
Or C. Even if I supported your cause I'll probably flip and be against it.
There is literally no outcome where I'm going "oh i didn't support xyz, but now I do because you've destroyed something or caused an hour traffic jam". Personally I think if you are that fucking stupid to lay on a highway/interstate knowing full well what's going to happen you deserve to get hit. It's not some kid or animal that wandered into the road that obviously doesn't know better, or even someone legitimately trying to cross a busy highway. That's literally attempting suicide to actively walk into it and lay down, and a car that hits them shouldn't get charged with anything.
This is a very old topic, such that IMO, it's not worth putting in the effort to discuss it online. Fortunately, it's also a very well-researched topic.
For the question of whether disruptive protests help or hurt, the answer seems to be slightly more on the "help" side (mostly in terms of drawing attention, as I understand it). Here is a recent article that looks into the question in depth: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13064859/
I find these comments really weird. "Look, I totally understand, but here's a big list of things that show I don't understand it at all. Like even a little bit. No, I won't do any introspection and wonder if I might not actually understand".
109 Comments
njm1314@lemmy.world · 186 pts · 6d
If throwing a can of paint is the same as throwing a bomb then why not throw bombs? Seems like a dumb thing for a government to promote...
timewarp@lemmy.world · 43 pts · 6d
This is their way of subduing the populace even more. If politicians and corporations were actually scared to fuck people over, we'd live in a much better world.
Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 32 pts · 6d
Thats actually what they want. They are engineering a reason.
CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 6d
Both outcomes benefit them. Either it scares and subdues everyone or does the exact opposite which gives them even more 'justification' for crackdowns.
WraithGear@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 5d
again it seems like they got their terrorism charge, so it didn’t matter what the person did. i find the argument that we should never do anything they could use to justify their fascism ridiculous, when we are talking about a live demonstration of said fascism being justified with non violent resistance.
Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 5d
Don't put words in my mouth.
WraithGear@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 5d
then if you agree, i am sorry for assuming the worst
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 5d
We'd better not give them a reason, or they might start doing fascist things.
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 161 pts · 6d
Kill thousands of Palestinian children, including by picking infants up by the ankle and swinging them hard as you can into brick walls, and impaling pregnant women through the stomach and leaving them to die in the dirt?
You're a "settler."
Throw paint at something to protest that?
You're a "terrorist."
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works · 45 pts · 6d
The British government paved the way for those settlers, don't forget. They assumed control of the land, kicked out the natives and beckoned for all the Israelites to enter, who, obviously, started murdering anyone still in Palestine. This chapter of their cruelty started in 1948 and Britain's government, who has always been a piece of shit, made it so.
Abyssian@lemmy.world · -20 pts · 6d
That's crazy. Fortunately the world is full of countries like China, the US, Germany, Russia... you know, big places where everything has run on compassion for others and doing the right thing for the last hundred plus years.
theacharnian@lemmy.ca · 26 pts · 6d
What's your point with this whataboutery ?
Rawrosaurus@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 5d
It's just some strange tribalism I think. I think in their mind you have to be supporting another empire instead, it seems some are unable to understand that you support none of them.
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 5d
That's an interesting theory.. I have none myself, except maybe they were being terribly sarcastic?
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5d
Ding ding ding.
I'm lost on how so many people seemed to take me listing the countries I did followed by the description of them as having "run on compassion for others and doing the right thing for the last hundred plus years" and seen anything other than sarcasm.
All of the listed countries have been responsible for the deaths of mass numbers of innocent civilians, and kids, and nuns, and nuns carrying infants who were carrying baby kittens over the last 100 or so years. Fuck, more than one of them has been responsible for that in the last few months.
Rawrosaurus@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 5d
In my case it was a combination of it being hard to read sarcasm online in many cases, especially if you are not already familiar with the author, along with the number of times I run into "You don't support A? That means you support B!" in political discussions.
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4d
I covered a few bases and was very wordy in my other comment to you, but otherwise yeah that really did not land for the majority. FWIW sarcasm was my first take.
Rawrosaurus@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 5d
That is also a possibility. I just run into way too many that seem to assume that to automatically default to reading it as sarcasm.
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4d
Hopium aha. In this case it was true, and we as a community are too battered to default to the most positive likelihood any more..
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
I find it more than a bit ironic that after I list many other countries who have done and/or are doing tons of awful things you say that.
What strange tribalism? What tribe? Why do you think I'm imagining anyone is supporting any empire? I said nothing positive about anyone. The entire point was "Yeah, seems like the bulk of the world is run by awful cunts. Let's have a pint."
... and that means I'm in some sort of tribe? Do we at least get fancy hats?
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 5d
Edit: each of these are incorrect, and more wild theories based on misconceptions than simply 'sarcasm that missed the mark'. We were the ones with the misconceptions, not Abyssian.
I get it, if you mean I'm being unnecessarily narrow-minded: there's no need to single out one or two cruel empires when there are many.. All of the most globally influential countries and many smaller ones are ethically awful and cause suffering, that it may be easier to count the ones that are wholly kind and benevolently ruled.
If you are subtly referencing the destruction of native civilisations for the unification of the newcomers: Many countries like Australia, Russia and Greenland (to name a few, perhaps less known ones) have natives a.k.a. people who lived there first that are horribly oppressed and shunned, but let's not try to erase the most significant acts of evil in modern history, condoned by a massive portion of the local population. One wrongful act does not excuse or justify another.
If you're referring to the systemic hate of Jews in those countries and most of Europe: please remember that the ethnoreligion of Judaism, the cult of Zion and the nationality of Israel are not the same.
*Edited out wildly inaccurate claim
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
What I said to the other guy down below: The entire point was “Yeah, seems like the bulk of the world is run by awful cunts. Let’s have a pint.”
philanthropicoctopus@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 5d
Can you please provide a source for these claims.
Just to be clear, I wholeheartedly believe they are capable of this. I'd just love to have a source to cite in future
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5d
I wasn't making factual claims of any certain incidents. I was using (sadly very light)hyperbole to make a point. There are databases of atrocities against Palestinians you can look into online. I stopped having the stomach for it a while ago. The things mentioned in my comment aren't specific incidents, but they are the level of evil that has been documented many times over.
philanthropicoctopus@thelemmy.club · 2 pts · 3d
Yeah gotcha
I certainly wouldn't put anything past them. They are modern Nazis
toiletobserver@lemmy.world · 103 pts · 6d
Ah yes, nothing screams terrorism like... paint.
Zephorah@discuss.online · 34 pts · 6d
It’s vandalism. It’s property damage. It’s rude as fuck. But it’s not terrorism. Trying Americans for protests calling it terrorism is a form of terrorism.
icanbrewmushrooms@lemmy.world · 60 pts · 6d
There are no Americans involved in this story...
Abyssian@lemmy.world · -14 pts · 6d
Wow, Lemmywinks. What crawled up your ass?
I don't really think you're over reacting to anything, just rare to get a chance to say that.
icanbrewmushrooms@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 6d
I appreciate the joke 😂 (though I'm not too surprised many others didn't get it, relying as it does on a ~25 year old South Park reference)
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 6d
I'm imagining they're all just down voting because they're sad I beat them to it.
Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca · -12 pts · 6d
It is. I'd consider it a form of stochastic terrorism. Stochastic terrorism is the public demonization of a person or group through mass media that incites a violent act which is statistically predictable but whose specific perpetrator and timing cannot be predicted.
So the government labeling anti-fascists as terrorists, or people that support an end to the Palestinian genocide as terrorists could fall under the definition of stochastic terrorism. We have the public demonization of anti-facists via policy and yellow journalism, which leads to those people speaking out against fascism to be targeted by the police/government for exercising their right to free speech and assembly. The anti genocide protesters spreading red paint and breaking windows are vandals for sure, but I wouldn't go so far as to label them as terrorists. Labeling them as terrorists creates an opening for the government to deny them freedom via criminal charges worse than any crime they are actually guilty of.
The US Department of Justice is attempting to prosecute an Atlanta resident in connection with the movement against the police training center known as Cop City because he had GrapheneOS on his phone, an open-source operating system that enables users to enter a passcode and wipe a phone clean. The dude gave the police officer the code to wipe the phone, instead of the unlock code, in response to an illegal search and seizure of his property. The defendant, Sam Tunick, was stopped for interrogation at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport on 24 January last year, after vacationing in the Dominican Republic. Unbeknown to him, federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City.
ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world · 90 pts · 6d
GreenCrunch@piefed.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 6d
Of course it's a terrorist, it's literally creating hundreds of explosions per second!
Zaktor@sopuli.xyz · 68 pts · 6d
They also called paint £200k in damage. And broken windows £500k. Just utterly insane figures to inflate the seriousness of what's just basic vandalism of a building.
biofaust@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 6d
In Italy, when we occupied the high school against the Berlusconi government, we were asked for one € each for one pane of glass broken.
That made for an extremely expensive glass since we were around 1000 in the institute and it was 2002.
Of course, the Dean pocketed more vaffanculos than coins.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · -11 pts · 6d
PumaStoleMyBluff@lemmy.world · 61 pts · 6d
The UK has successfully watered down terrorism to mean "petty crime"
Mrkawfee@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 6d
It was watered down 25 years ago to include property damage but has never been used until, surprise surprise, Zionist genocide is being inconvenienced.
theacharnian@lemmy.ca · 60 pts · 6d
Labour has paved the way for Reform to go full fascist.
Zaktor@sopuli.xyz · 13 pts · 6d
Yeah, I always have to remind myself that these repressive stories from the UK are being done under the government elected in to stop the conservatives. Where do the more conservative parties have to go when this is the baseline of the center left?
abbiistabbii@piefed.blahaj.zone · 43 pts · 6d
We really live in a country where terrorism means anything that the government wants, Huh.
grue@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 6d
If by "we" you mean people in the UK, yes.
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 6d
US too, descending into fascism hand in hand
abbiistabbii@piefed.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 5d
I am, regrettably, in the UK.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 6d
And USA
grue@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 6d
This article is about the UK. That's why it's talking about "Barclays bank," "Preston Crown Court," listed damages in £, etc.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 6d
I'm saying folks over there have the same issue, that or "socialist" as if the word is equivalent
liking625@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 6d
Where is the terror exactly? That's prevarication. Anyone judging paintings as terrorism should be put to jail.
MammyWhammy@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 5d
If something that should at worst be called vandalism is considered terrorism what's preventing activists from just doing actual terrorism?
Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 5d
Ethics, probably
T00l_shed@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 5d
The terror is Barclays trying to profit off the climate catastrophe
cheers_queers@lemmy.zip · 28 pts · 6d
i remember the days when terrorism included fatalities
Smaile@lemmy.ca · 25 pts · 5d
violence is the anwser, not spray paint, you'll be designated as a terrorist either way so you have nothing to lose.
JingoBingo@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 5d
You start
Smaile@lemmy.ca · -7 pts · 5d
don't need to, my democracy (Canada) threw out your puppet Pierre Poilievre and the sedition plot for Alberta is failing, now the conservatives are becoming more irrelevant by the day as the old folks die off, why should i die for your country when that's your responsibility. but rest assured, if any of your lead brain dumbfuck soldiers come to my country under donalds order, i will happily find ways of getting rid of them like other wars they've failed to win.
if this is your response then you deserve to be a debt slave you coward.
cheat700000007@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 5d
Canada is absolutely not safe from PP and our closest to actual left party was effectively destroyed through this, and now the liberals are shifting further and further right
Smaile@lemmy.ca · -3 pts · 5d
lol nah, the cons are diving deeper in the poles and the ndp is rising, theyre dieing as moderate cons flock to either ndp for workers rights or carney for civil order. only the maple magas and con tribalist that cant change are still red.
JingoBingo@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 5d
lol what country do you think I’m from?
Smaile@lemmy.ca · -5 pts · 5d
American, considering your first response and you pointing a finger at me tells me you didnt care to check where im from hypocrite, if your going to be useless, just keep your mouth shut.
JingoBingo@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 5d
lol I’m not American. Why do you assume that under a post about the UK? Dumb ass Hoser.
Smaile@lemmy.ca · -3 pts · 5d
same shit diff country brits are doing the same thing as america now, but you are right in that i didn't check cuz this sound exactly like what donald is doing. nothing about my original point has changed.
JingoBingo@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 5d
I’m not British 🤮 either
Ramsesder13te@feddit.org · 20 pts · 6d
Oh nooo... PAINT!!! What utter terror...
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 6d
B...but it's difficult to remove! :(
Think of the people that would need to be paid for such an effort. By a poor little bank, no less! :(
JingoBingo@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 5d
In the UK the state can deprive a person of their UK citizenship when they are labeled a terrorist by the state. Guess what will happen next to these people.
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 5d
Craven, servile authorities with no morals or balls might be able to stop people finding ways to voice their horror at the fact gutless IDF fuckholes mass murder Palestinian babies and children, but they'll never stop people knowing Netanyahu's an inhuman cunt, who deserves to be thrown into a deep, deep pit for the rest of his life, for ordering it.
lemmylump@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 6d
My friends in America wonder why I don't move back to the UK, and I always tell them, same shit different weather.
Gates9@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 6d
Grass@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 6d
literal whole buildings for entire blocks have graffiti and random crap in places all around the world. Spray paint clearly isn't good enough.
CyroSignal@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 5d
This term is used to discredit certain people...
0li0li@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 6d
I don't think anyone's been terrorised by this creative painting social exhibition. Hell, I'm sure some employees of the bank enjoyed it as well.
spacegoat@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 5d
If the penalty is so steep for minor offenses, they will encourage real terror. Why wouldn’t the next ones just blow up the bank if they’re going be charged as terrorists regardless? It’s not a charge you ever recover from.
Taleya@aussie.zone · 6 pts · 5d
terrorism is such a low bar nowdays, I miss when they had to work for it
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 5d
Anyone who finds spray paint on a bank more terrifying than the Arms Manufacturing Industry is a fucking psychopath.
They should have to prove terror has been caused to a considerable part of the population.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 2 pts · 6d
"Sentenced as terrorists" is not what is really happening here. As I said before, when a crime carries over 2 years of prison (and property damage of 200k does) the judge can consider "terrorist connection" as an aggravating factor. They belong to Palestine Action which is considered terrorist organization in UK. This proscription was recently upheld by Court of Appeals.
They are not being sentenced for being members of Palestine Action. The court is considering "terrorist connection" aggravating factor in property damage conviction. If the aggravating factor is added it will have an impact on the conditions of their parole, not the sentence itself*.
*Edit: it actually does affect the final sentence, like any other aggravating factor.
theacharnian@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 6d
Thank you for the technical clarification.
The word "terrorist" is not merely a technical designator. It is highly emotionally charged and political. It is a word that evokes hundreds of victims in blind attacks on trains or on buildings and aeroplanes. It evokes fanaticism and destructiveness, frothing hatred and irrational bloodlust. "We do not negotiate with terrorists." Terrorists are the villains in every movie ever. In the wider society, a "terrorist connection" is a connection to all that.
So splitting the legal hairs here is at best irrelevant. We live in a society not a courtroom. The government has slapped the Big Scary Word on a thing it shouldn't have.
And even if this government gets all the benefits of the doubt (personally I really don't think they should) because they are trying their best to balance between impossible political attractors (personally I think they are just enablers of a genocidal apartheid regime for political expediency), the next one or the one after the next one will not hesitate to use the Big Scary Word not as a technical designator but as a political sledgehammer.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 2 pts · 6d
I think it is important to to know what's happening and not just repeat narrative coming from one side. People argued with me that "terrorist connection" means people are being convicted of additional crimes without the knowledge of a jury. Now you're claiming the government is calling them terrorists while the "terrorist organization" proscription for Palestine Action was upheld by Court of Appeals. Palestine Action is using the threat of serious damage to property to intimidate people and advance ideological cause. They are publishing a "target map: https://targetmap.org/map. This is pretty much the definition of a terrorist organization according to UK laws.
We all would like UK government to sanction Israel but few governments in the world are willing to do that. Groups like Palestine Action try to change the status quo by committing crimes.I don't think terrorist organization proscription is an overreach by the government here. I think that instead of being intimidated by it we should admit that yes, in this case, we do support the terrorist.
theacharnian@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 6d
That's a circular definition: the Labour government passed laws that defined Palestine Action as terrorists so therefore they are terrorist because the courts said they fit the description of the laws.
The other thing that you seem to have forfeited is a sense of proportionality. So, if you want to go around declaring yourself ...a "terrorist sympathizer", don't let me stop you. I'll keep on insisting that Palestine Action should have never been proscribed in the first place. All of the craziness follows from that first moment of Labour stupidity and overreach.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 6d
Ok, that's fair. For me the definition used for the proscription doesn't sound like something tailor made to fit Palestine Action nor does it look like a tool for squashing dissidents. I would say that is a group of people operated covertly to intimidate businesses supporting Palestine (for example damaging businesses providing relief to Palestine and hosting a map with targets, encouraging people to do the same) I wouldn't hesitate to call that terrorism. I think it's fine if you're worried about being called a "terrorist sympathizer". I don't really mind that. Palestine Action is committing crimes to achieve their goals and I'm not going to pretend they don't.
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 5d
You might want to read the judgement then, because Johnson has a very different understanding - he very specifically names the Suffragettes as not being terrorists, despite their use of public and personal bombings and arson attacks to intimidate and influence policy. The law is not being applied equally, it is being used as a bludgeon against those who oppose genocide.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 2 pts · 5d
I did read it:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/R-v-Charlotte-Head-and-others-sentencing-remarks.pdf
I don't have that much time so I read the justification for terrorist connection aggravating factor and it's exactly what I said here. I don't see anything about Suffragettes in there. Can you point me to the part that talks about it?
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 5d
Sorry, rereading I was completely unclear about which case I was refering to, and got my conflicts of interest mixed up - I meant the proscription judgement (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721?query=AMMORI&court=ewca%2Fciv) and Johnson wasn't on this panel, his judgement is just based on it. The Suffragettes actions are specifically brought up as "civil disobedience" rather than "direct action", which is a distinction the proscription kinda hinges on.
WraithGear@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 5d
you agree with the practice of inflating the cost of crime so that any action can be considered terrorism? seems a bit much for me and backing of government oppression.
terrorism has a meaning, and is not dependent on amounts of property damage.
this is the same thing as redefining illegal immigrants as enemy combatants so you can suspend habeous corpus, and other human rights
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 5d
Where in my comment did I say I agree or disagree with any of it?
If you would understand my comment you would realize that is pretty much exactly what I said.
WraithGear@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5d
‘ they are not being sentenced as terrorists, just sentenced as committing terroristic actions’ is an argument without purpose.
the discussion is around the inflation of the crime to scare people from pushing against what is happening.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 5d
Ok, so you don't care about the legal process that's being used here. That's cool. Personally I like being informed and find it interesting.
crapwittyname@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 5d
From the judgement:
That is to say, yes, the terrorism connection absolutely increases the severity of the sentence.
On top of that, since the jury were unaware that this was being considered, and not allowed to consider motivations in their verdict, there seems to be a fundamental rupture in the process of natural justice.
I hope that this case is revisited, and the sentences reduced, because there is an element of scapegoating apparent, which is not just.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 5d
There's no such thing as "severity of the sentence". They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.
As with "severity of the sentence" you don't know what you're talking about. That's not how any of it works.
crapwittyname@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 5d
I wasn't using legal language. By "the severity of the sentence", I just meant the length or onerousness of the sentence.
A flat lie, if you claim to have read the judgement, since it says:
Then, your ad hominem response "you don't know what you're talking about" renders your argument void. Try again, if you like. But I'd advise you to save face and admit your mistakes at this point.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 3 pts · 5d
You're right. They did add 2 years to the sentence because of various aggravating factors, terrorist connected being one of them. Good to know.
crapwittyname@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 5d
You fucking legend.
So few, so vanishingly few people on internet forums remain open-minded enough to change their view, on anything even when presented with incontrovertible evidence. I like to think I'm one of these few, and now I think you are too. Good on you.
I'm a scientist by education, and so I value nothing more, intellectually, than being able to admit you have more to learn.
I couldn't possibly have more respect for you than I do now after reading your last comment.
As an aside, I find your other comments to be really incisive, and you've made me see this issue in a new light. Thanks to you, I've read the entire judgement, and realised that these people are far from heroes, the issue isn't black and white, and Corner probably deserves most of his sentence. Which was soothing to my anger, because this isn't as egregious a miscarriage of justice as I previously thought. It's still a partisan reading of the law though, in my opinion. But it doesn't seem to overstep the bounds, just burgeon upon them.
Anyway, thanks.
Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 5d
That 200k damage doesn't even hold up
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 5d
The terrorist connection aggravating factor can be applied if the damage is over 5k. Even if 200k is exaggerated I don't think providing the real number would help them.
wizardfrag@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5d
How can it be an aggravating factor if there was no terrorist connection at the time of the offence? The proscription of PA wasn’t backdated, and the vandalism happened before that, right?
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 2 pts · 5d
INAL but I think that's why they are not being charged with terrorism, only terrorist connection is applied.
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 5d
Where did you get this idea from? Aggravating and mitigating factors specifically apply to the length of the sentence in UK law.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 5d
I may be wrong but https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/129/5801129en.pdf
""" offence found to have a terrorist connection by definition in new sub-paragraph (3E), the offender will be subject to the release provisions in section 247A of the 2003 Act (for extended sentences for offences which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, release will be at the end of the full custodial term; for all other sentences release will be at the discretion of the Parole Board from the two-thirds point of the custodial term)."""
So I believe what "terrorist connection" aggravating factor does for conviction in crimes like property damage is that you can apply for parole after 2/3 of the full sentence. From what I read it definitely doesn't extend the sentence - the maximum sentence is still the same as maximum sentence for property damage. Not sure if the judge is forced to apply maximum sentence or not if terrorist connection is found. Can't find any info on that.
EDIT: I read the sentencing and minimum sentence is not affected, just the parole conditions.
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 5d
You don't see how changes like that, extending the minimum time to be considered for parole (I.e released), would in practice extend a sentence?
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 5d
It would extend the time spend in prison, not the sentence. The sentence is the maximum time someone can be held in prison. This is not extended. Parole rules determine the minimal possible time someone has to spend in prison. This is what changed.
I'm clearly not defending anything here, just explaining what happened. Don't confuse people by mixing legal terms.
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 3d
Ah, you're a world of imagination type. Sorry, I operate in real world effects, not in theoretical constructs that are totally different except for in what they actually do.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 3d
Not just imagination type but also wrong! It turns out it does extend the sentence. This was already covered days ago. You're late to the game.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 5d
A little off topic but trump spray paints his Tchotchke's.
Tiral@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 6d
Like, I understand wanting to advocate for something you're passionate about and passing out flyers or even holding signa or something. But when you throw paint at art, block roads, generally be an asshole to people just going about life you're
A. Not going to even remotely convince me to support your cause, in fact it will probably more likely make me be against it.
B. Piss me off because you're destroying amazing artwork (or whatever) and I'll hate your cause.
Or C. Even if I supported your cause I'll probably flip and be against it.
There is literally no outcome where I'm going "oh i didn't support xyz, but now I do because you've destroyed something or caused an hour traffic jam". Personally I think if you are that fucking stupid to lay on a highway/interstate knowing full well what's going to happen you deserve to get hit. It's not some kid or animal that wandered into the road that obviously doesn't know better, or even someone legitimately trying to cross a busy highway. That's literally attempting suicide to actively walk into it and lay down, and a car that hits them shouldn't get charged with anything.
msfroh@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 6d
This is a very old topic, such that IMO, it's not worth putting in the effort to discuss it online. Fortunately, it's also a very well-researched topic.
For the question of whether disruptive protests help or hurt, the answer seems to be slightly more on the "help" side (mostly in terms of drawing attention, as I understand it). Here is a recent article that looks into the question in depth: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13064859/
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 5d
I find these comments really weird. "Look, I totally understand, but here's a big list of things that show I don't understand it at all. Like even a little bit. No, I won't do any introspection and wonder if I might not actually understand".
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 6d
I think you're confusing Palestine Action with Extinction Rebellion.