UK arrests 83-year-old priest for backing Palestine Action and opposing Gaza genocide
-
On the outside of the engine I agree.
On the inside there are moving parts that probably don't like increased friction, so they probably have to take the whole thing apart to remove the paint.
It's still not really destruction of property.
Big deal. The UK has billions of pounds from selling arms to the genocidal apartheid zionist state.
-
Charming.
There is such a thing as context. Red paint on a street is an annoyance (and may make for very visible and effective protest). Red paint on hi-tech equipment is sabotage (and makes for very unpleasant reactions by the owners of said equipment).
wrote last edited by [email protected]You're the perfect personnification of ordinary evil. Too dumb to realize you're a genocider.
I hope you see your loved ones suffer.
-
Hey what’s the difference between and American and a European? An ocean and some bicycles.
You’ll both fuck me equally while moralizing. Aside from that, you’re just as bad and pretentious and toxic as Americans
wrote last edited by [email protected]Go take some meds, you are delirious
-
Why is the UK against people backing Mandatory Palestine?
Because they helped set israel up and have to be allied with them.
-
Because they helped set israel up and have to be allied with them.
The joke is that Mandatory Palestine was the name of the British colony before they gave the land to Israel
-
The joke is that Mandatory Palestine was the name of the British colony before they gave the land to Israel
Oh, thank you for explaining!
-
I'm gonna try it again maybe this time you will understand: praising a good priest is not much different than praising a good scientologis, you can be a good person without associating yourself to a cult that threat people to believe in ghosts
Why this level of vitriol and condescension in this exchange?
I'm also going to repeat... Taking your stance to an extreme, and you have yourself a reductionist view of the world with nothing but intolerance or hatred for those who don't share it. Sounds familiar?
I don't know what's going on in your life, you could be going through something and I don't want to add more to the pile of what you're already dealing with. So I'm just gonna leave this here, because I suspect that even my concerning tone right now will read as passive aggressive to you. It isn't. But I can't control that.
So take care.
-
"One of the most calming and powerful actions you can do to intervene in a stormy world is to stand up and show your soul. Soul on deck shines like gold in dark times. The light of the soul throws sparks, can send up flares, builds signal fires, causes proper matters to catch fire. To display the lantern of soul in shadowy times like these - to be fierce and to show mercy toward others; both are acts of immense bravery and greatest necessity."
From a letter by Clarissa Pinkola Estes, https://www.awakin.org/v2/read/view.php?tid=2195
wrote last edited by [email protected]Thank your for such reply and the link as well. The text you linked shares a lot of inspiration for these trying times.
And oh, how we definitely need it.
-
It's sabotage. It's not terrorism. The gov is wrong to proscribe this group, you must see that? Regardless of your stance on the issue, this is an anti democratic move by Labour.
Sabotage can absolutely be terrorism. In this case probably not, but the British government has a valid reason to oppose this specific group.
-
Attacked aircraft? By smacking the landing gear with her walker?
Way to show your ignorance.
-
Sabotage can absolutely be terrorism. In this case probably not, but the British government has a valid reason to oppose this specific group.
I didn't mean to say say sabotage could not be terrorism in general, I'm agreeing that this is absolutely sabotage, but in this case it is not terrorism.
The govt do not have a valid reason to proscribe them as a terrorist organisation. There are other available methods of opposition.
Terrorism is generally linked with a risk to personal safety at the very least, not mere property damage. These people are criminals, not terrorists. -
I didn't mean to say say sabotage could not be terrorism in general, I'm agreeing that this is absolutely sabotage, but in this case it is not terrorism.
The govt do not have a valid reason to proscribe them as a terrorist organisation. There are other available methods of opposition.
Terrorism is generally linked with a risk to personal safety at the very least, not mere property damage. These people are criminals, not terrorists.I can agree with that.
-
I support Palestine Action - illegal
I support Action for Palestine - legal
As a Brit I still support Palestine Action and will be getting involved in more direct action.
One at me piggies.
-
It's sabotage. It's not terrorism. The gov is wrong to proscribe this group, you must see that? Regardless of your stance on the issue, this is an anti democratic move by Labour.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I do think that arresting people for voicing their support is counter-productive, unnecessarily heavy-handed and at the very least controversial from a freedom-of-speech point of view.
But I don't see how the government should not ban a group that resorts to sabotage to achieve their political goals? Any state – democratically legitimized or no – will be very twitchy about stuff that touches national security.
Am I missing some nuance here?
-
The Russian Federation is de facto a Moscowite empire. And they are trying their best to annex more countries into their "Federation".
Oh, for sure. I just meant they'd be doing it overseas if they could. Right now they're only able to do it locally, and are currently not able to continue because Ukraine is holding them off.
-
I do think that arresting people for voicing their support is counter-productive, unnecessarily heavy-handed and at the very least controversial from a freedom-of-speech point of view.
But I don't see how the government should not ban a group that resorts to sabotage to achieve their political goals? Any state – democratically legitimized or no – will be very twitchy about stuff that touches national security.
Am I missing some nuance here?
The nuance here is that they've been proscribed as a terrorist group. They are a direct action group but they don't hurt people, just damage property. That's a crime, but it's not terrorism. They can and should be tried for criminal damage, B&E, damage to government property etc, but this is a freedom of protest issue, and now freedom of speech, too, since I can no longer say things like "I think Palestine Action went too far, but they're fighting for a just cause", for example, because I'd be expressing support for a terrorist group and therefore committing a crime.
Compare to e.g. the suffragette movement who bombed buildings and all kinds to get the vote for women: they're now lauded by the same person who proscribed this group. Or more recent examples like just stop oil or the protesters that threw the Edward Colson statue into the River Avon. They were tried for criminal damages. Then recently, some protesters have been starting to get tried under the far, far harsher anti terrorism laws, usually when it involves protesting Israel's war crimes. These are the laws that allow things like extended detention in solitary without charge or phone calls, massively longer sentences and all manner of nasty punishments. It's clearly a power grab to reduce the will to protest. -
The nuance here is that they've been proscribed as a terrorist group. They are a direct action group but they don't hurt people, just damage property. That's a crime, but it's not terrorism. They can and should be tried for criminal damage, B&E, damage to government property etc, but this is a freedom of protest issue, and now freedom of speech, too, since I can no longer say things like "I think Palestine Action went too far, but they're fighting for a just cause", for example, because I'd be expressing support for a terrorist group and therefore committing a crime.
Compare to e.g. the suffragette movement who bombed buildings and all kinds to get the vote for women: they're now lauded by the same person who proscribed this group. Or more recent examples like just stop oil or the protesters that threw the Edward Colson statue into the River Avon. They were tried for criminal damages. Then recently, some protesters have been starting to get tried under the far, far harsher anti terrorism laws, usually when it involves protesting Israel's war crimes. These are the laws that allow things like extended detention in solitary without charge or phone calls, massively longer sentences and all manner of nasty punishments. It's clearly a power grab to reduce the will to protest.oh. yeah damaging property is kinda missing the "terror" in "terrorism". I get it. Thank you
