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.

  • Sharkticon@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    6 hours ago

    If spray painting a plane is the exact same as blowing it up then might as well blow it up.

  • masinko@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Adding an offence later in the case and withholding information to a jury has to be grounds a mistrial.

    • neobunch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Ironically, it means the same it has always meant: resistance to colonization/imperialism/opression, it’s just that in the past it was disguised with the veil of “civilization”, and now the mask is off and you can see the naked brutal truth of how the term has always been weaponized

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Terror is in interesting word, it used to mean a government that oppressed their citizens, then it changed to mean general attacks on civillians by a non government entity.

    And now, it means protesting specific government policies.

    The first meanings are understandable, they involve harming civillians.

    The new definition is just idiotic.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Didn’t they break a cop’s back? “Middle East Eye” isn’t mentioning that because it’s not exactly an unbiased source of information. They’re just innocent “protesters” LOL.

    Using violence to achieve a political goal is pretty much the definition of terrorism. Using violence to influence a government is terrorism. It would be bias for the judge to grant some kind of exemption simply because the government involved is Israel.

    They were doing violence (broke a person’s back) to influence the British government’s relationship with Israel. That’s terrorism.

    Consider expanding your sources of information beyond sites that are giving incomplete information with the goal of making you feel angry.

    • acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      “They” didn’t hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.

      Your tirade about violence is quite silly actually, because it’s far too indiscriminate. The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*). Placing them in the same category as motherfucking ISIS is simply making a mockery of the principle of proportionality, which is a cornerstone of any liberal democracy.

      (*) The incident with the policewoman is not indicative of their modus operandi. They did not hope to affect political change by injuring police officers, the same way that, say ISIS used murder as a political tool of terror. It’s the difference between murder and manslaughter.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        “They” didn’t hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.

        “They” were more than four people. There were eight others involved that were acquitted. Again, read some more news sources.

        The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*)

        How do you know the mindset of these people better than a jury of their peers that saw all of the evidence?

        Also in many places it is first degree murder (not manslaughter) if you accidentally kill someone while in the commission of another crime. Modus operandi kinda goes out the window when you’re already engaged in a crime and that results in other crimes.

        The intent of the original crime (property destruction) was to influence the government. That intent can be transferred to other crimes they committed (the acts of violence) while doing the original crime. Their intent was to influence the government. They committed crimes and violence happened during the commission of those crimes. The original intent applies to the violent crimes they committed. The intent of the violence was to influence the government.

        Anyway it obviously was enough to convince a jury of their peers.

        Pro-tip: if you’re going out to do crimes to try to influence the government, maybe refrain from hitting a policewoman multiple times with a fucking sledgehammer. I’m not going to be crying over someone that does something like that going to prison for a long time.

        • acargitz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Only a jury of their peers didn’t convict them of terrorism. The judge arbitrarily chose to sentence them as terrorists. Your entire edifice is based on a faulty premise.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            So you don’t think that the intent of the original crime doesn’t apply to subsequent crimes committed during the same act?

            Or do you know that you’re wrong and can’t admit it and still feel the need to say stuff anyway?

    • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Didn’t they break a cop’s back? “Middle East Eye” isn’t mentioning that because it’s not exactly an unbiased source of information. They’re just innocent “protesters” LOL.

      Why would a cop be there?

      Using violence to achieve a political goal is pretty much the definition of terrorism.

      Congrats, you just defined the entirety of every police force and judicial system in the world as terrorists.

      Using violence to influence a government is terrorism.

      No, it’s just the only effective way to enact change.

      They were doing violence (broke a person’s back) to influence the British government’s relationship with Israel. That’s terrorism.

      Only because they’re brown and going against a Western country. When the UK government hires people to do it, it’s just a military intervention.

      Consider expanding your sources of information beyond sites that are giving incomplete information with the goal of making you feel angry.

      You’re defending a country previously engaged in the worst acts ever recorded in human history, honestly dwarfing Germany’s in all but intensity, and currently is aiding in some of the worst acts in human history. If you ever find yourself in that position, I recommend either getting the taste of iron and sulphur in you, or correcting yourself before someone does that for you.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Why would a cop be there?

        Because they broke into a building and were destroying property. They were fighting with the building’s security and so the cops were called.

        You really don’t know anything about the subject, do you? Really, you have to read news from more sources instead of just swallowing whatever propaganda that gets fed to you.

        • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Because they broke into a building and were destroying property.

          Oh no. Maybe that building was promised to them 3000 years ago. Did you see if they had any UK-recognized religious claims to that building and its materials? The UK recognizes ancient religious claims to land and possessions so clearly the cops broke the law by not following their own precedent.

          They were fighting with the building’s security and so the cops were called.

          Maybe the security were just islamphobic and were holding their children hostage. You don’t know. You weren’t there. Until I get a government press release from a trust worthy government I can’t really say it’s not true. Really we have to give such claims equal weight since we now know they had a 3000 year old claim to that building and all its possessions. It seems like the building security are the real terrorists here.

          You really don’t know anything about the subject, do you? Really, you have to read news from more sources instead of just swallowing whatever propaganda that gets fed to you.

          Maybe I just need some more Hasbara in my life, it’s clearly done you a world of good.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            What are you talking about? They hit a police woman in the back multiple times with a god damn sledgehammer.

            Do you think people that do that shouldn’t go to prison?

            • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Genuinely sounds like self defense. I’d have to wait until I see approved-state approved versions of the livestream and video though but it just sounds like that police woman was hiding nuclear secrets in her back and really had it coming. I mean she clearly threatened the entire country and these heroes bravely did what any hero should and took out the threat.

              • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                It doesn’t exactly help the argument that this wasn’t terrorism when you automatically relate every violent act to geopolitics.

                If you ever do any violence, this kind of thing in your posting history would be pretty strong evidence of terrorist intent.