5 ms·

> “But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support. If that is a crime, send me back to jail.” https

by jl6 3y ago

> “But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support. If that is a crime, send me back to jail.” https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1713335006121140511 https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...

zarzavat 3y ago
That is clearly illegal to say in the UK. I do not agree with the very selective way that our hate speech laws are enforced (it is not illegal to call for the killing of people in Gaza), but outright support of listed terrorism organizations is not a grey area.
- dundarious 3y ago
  I agree it's probably against UK law, but why use harsh counter-terrorism laws to deal with a speech matter? The Met (not the same police force) was just a few months ago found to have abused the exceptional powers in question. https://apnews.com/article/uk-police-should-not-have-stopped-french-publisher-under-antiterror-law-ca972828ec858a636ebd05f009a0a5b9 https://apnews.com/article/uk-police-should-not-have-stopped... > Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said officers should not have used Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which gives them exceptional powers to root out terrorists, to determine if Moret had been involved in the turbulent pension reform demonstrations that had roiled France for months. > “The problem with exercising counterterrorism powers to investigate whether an individual is a peaceful protestor or a violent protestor is that it is using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut,” Hall said. Using the same powers (admittedly less harshly) regarding a post on twitter.com is similarly "using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut" -- there isn't even the question of violence in this case.
  - mike_d 3y ago
    > I agree it's probably against UK law, but why use harsh counter-terrorism laws to deal with a speech matter When the speech is promoting and supporting a terrorist organization (according to UK law), the police have a reasonable expectation to investigate and see if that individual is providing other material support to the organization. It is literally peak FAFO.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dundarious 3y ago
      Free civil society requires that those laws not be used with a broad brush (or ideally exist at all, but let's put a pin in that). It's well within reason to question that extremely invasive law's applicability here, where the connection to Hamas is extremely tenuous (a single post, that he had already clarified a day before his detainment and interrogation where his rights were suspended), and to draw analogy to the very recent finding against a somewhat similar use.
      - zarzavat 3y ago
        The guy has every reason to believe in conspiracies against himself, given the history. However at the present time there are many people being charged with making similar statements and it has been well publicized by the Government that anybody who makes statements in support of listed terrorist groups will get a knock at the door and the book thrown at them. Every British person knows that such statements are very illegal. Politically, I personally prefer something more like the US first amendment, however that is not a popular political opinion in the UK where hate speech restrictions enjoy broad political support.
        dundarious 3y ago
        Let them knock on his door then, his address is well-known to police. They do not need to use laws that suspend his right to silence or legal council, and permanently seize his property.
- jl6 3y ago
  Quite. A recent letter from the Home Secretary to the Police states the following: > As you know, Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK in its entirety. It is therefore a criminal offence for a person in the UK to: > … > * invite support for Hamas > * express support for Hamas whilst being reckless as to whether the expression will encourage support of it > … Assuming this is an accurate representation of the law, it seems we don’t need to invoke conspiracy and persecution theories to understand why the police want to speak to him. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-chiefs-asked-to-protect-communities-from-provocations/letter-to-chief-constables-in-england-and-wales-following-the-israel-hamas-conflict-accessible https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-chiefs-ask...
  - justnotworthit 3y ago
    He doesn't know why they want to speak with him: “I still don’t actually know whether the terrorism investigation into me is focused on Palestine or on Wikileaks. It seems to be both and anything else they can get.”
    - mike_d 3y ago
      Apparently nobody ever told him when the police officer says "do you know why I pulled you over?" your answer shouldn't be "I didn't know it would be a multiple choice question!"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- avar 3y ago
  > outright support of listed > terrorism organizations is > not a grey area. It's not? I think you're right after having read the law [1][2] it outlaws any expression of support. In the case of a government organization like Hamas that's pretty absurd. I don't agree with most of what they're doing, but I'd think that e.g. expressing support for their efforts to provide clean drinking water to their constituents wouldn't be illegal, but the text of the law seems to clearly state that it would be. 1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror... 2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12

by jl6 3y ago

zarzavat 3y ago

That is clearly illegal to say in the UK. I do not agree with the very selective way that our hate speech laws are enforced (it is not illegal to call for the killing of people in Gaza), but outright support of listed terrorism organizations is not a grey area.

dundarious 3y ago
I agree it's probably against UK law, but why use harsh counter-terrorism laws to deal with a speech matter? The Met (not the same police force) was just a few months ago found to have abused the exceptional powers in question. https://apnews.com/article/uk-police-should-not-have-stopped-french-publisher-under-antiterror-law-ca972828ec858a636ebd05f009a0a5b9 https://apnews.com/article/uk-police-should-not-have-stopped... > Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said officers should not have used Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which gives them exceptional powers to root out terrorists, to determine if Moret had been involved in the turbulent pension reform demonstrations that had roiled France for months. > “The problem with exercising counterterrorism powers to investigate whether an individual is a peaceful protestor or a violent protestor is that it is using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut,” Hall said. Using the same powers (admittedly less harshly) regarding a post on twitter.com is similarly "using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut" -- there isn't even the question of violence in this case.
- mike_d 3y ago
  > I agree it's probably against UK law, but why use harsh counter-terrorism laws to deal with a speech matter When the speech is promoting and supporting a terrorist organization (according to UK law), the police have a reasonable expectation to investigate and see if that individual is providing other material support to the organization. It is literally peak FAFO.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dundarious 3y ago
    Free civil society requires that those laws not be used with a broad brush (or ideally exist at all, but let's put a pin in that). It's well within reason to question that extremely invasive law's applicability here, where the connection to Hamas is extremely tenuous (a single post, that he had already clarified a day before his detainment and interrogation where his rights were suspended), and to draw analogy to the very recent finding against a somewhat similar use.
    - zarzavat 3y ago
      The guy has every reason to believe in conspiracies against himself, given the history. However at the present time there are many people being charged with making similar statements and it has been well publicized by the Government that anybody who makes statements in support of listed terrorist groups will get a knock at the door and the book thrown at them. Every British person knows that such statements are very illegal. Politically, I personally prefer something more like the US first amendment, however that is not a popular political opinion in the UK where hate speech restrictions enjoy broad political support.
      - dundarious 3y ago
        Let them knock on his door then, his address is well-known to police. They do not need to use laws that suspend his right to silence or legal council, and permanently seize his property.
jl6 3y ago
Quite. A recent letter from the Home Secretary to the Police states the following: > As you know, Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK in its entirety. It is therefore a criminal offence for a person in the UK to: > … > * invite support for Hamas > * express support for Hamas whilst being reckless as to whether the expression will encourage support of it > … Assuming this is an accurate representation of the law, it seems we don’t need to invoke conspiracy and persecution theories to understand why the police want to speak to him. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-chiefs-asked-to-protect-communities-from-provocations/letter-to-chief-constables-in-england-and-wales-following-the-israel-hamas-conflict-accessible https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-chiefs-ask...
- justnotworthit 3y ago
  He doesn't know why they want to speak with him: “I still don’t actually know whether the terrorism investigation into me is focused on Palestine or on Wikileaks. It seems to be both and anything else they can get.”
  - mike_d 3y ago
    Apparently nobody ever told him when the police officer says "do you know why I pulled you over?" your answer shouldn't be "I didn't know it would be a multiple choice question!"
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
avar 3y ago
> outright support of listed > terrorism organizations is > not a grey area. It's not? I think you're right after having read the law [1][2] it outlaws any expression of support. In the case of a government organization like Hamas that's pretty absurd. I don't agree with most of what they're doing, but I'd think that e.g. expressing support for their efforts to provide clean drinking water to their constituents wouldn't be illegal, but the text of the law seems to clearly state that it would be. 1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror... 2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12