Starmer continues to assault UK freedoms to protect Israel
London police have made mass arrests again today of peaceful protesters as the Starmer regime continues to misuse anti-terror legislation against anti-genocide speech and protest, after more than a thousand people turned up holding placards opposing Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the government’s Israel-driven decision to classify a non-violent direct action group as terrorists:
And despite the peaceful discipline of those participating in the demo, police actions have again turned violent, with officers drawing batons and beating some protesters, while physically carting off others, despite many of the protesters being elderly or disabled:
Police last week raided and arrested a number of volunteers of Defend Our Juries, which has organised the sit-in, simply for organising Zoom calls and has charged dozens more people under the Terrorism Act 2000.
A DOJ spokesperson said:
State repression has not worked. We can confirm around 1,500 are currently defying the ban in Parliament Square.
Liverpool-based “We are the People Liverpool”, who sent representatives to the protest, said:
Welcome to the fascist police state indeed. Hundreds arrested and assaulted today in London!!!
The genocidal Israeli colony has murdered approaching half a million people in Gaza – overwhelmingly civilians – according to analysis of the Israeli military’s own data. Despite this, the Starmer regime continues to collude and directly assist in the slaughter.
Images and footage by Gerry Tasker for Skwawkbox/Canary.
Video: Cage International.
When the original anti-terror laws were discussed, Campbell Savours posed exactly this question suggesting if a “Middle Eastern state” wished to win a multi-billion contract, would part of the deal be to proscribe any group that objected?” I think he covered a number of points in that 26 years ago.
Jack Straw would have none of it ………………..
From Hansard, 14th December 1999……….
Mr. Campbell-Savours Perhaps I can be a little more precise. Let us suppose that there was a major defence contract, which was worth billions of pounds over many years, and that a Government in the middle east exerted pressure on the British Government by telling them that, if they wanted the contract, they would have to take action against a militant group, active in London in conspiring in and drawing together an international campaign. Does not my right hon. Friend foresee circumstances—not under 165a Labour Government, but under other future Governments—in which that sort of pressure could pay off?
Mr. Straw I genuinely do not believe that that would happen. Let us assume for a moment that holders of my office, regardless of party, are completely venal and have an interest only in securing that defence contract. No member of the Government would make the decision to prosecute. First, the police would have to decide whether to investigate an alleged offence. The law guarantees the operational independence of chief officers of police. It is profoundly important under our constitution to ensure that it is not possible for the holder of a political officer, however high or mighty, to instruct a chief officer to investigate a crime because it happens to suit that person’s purpose.
Secondly, clause 113 provides that, proceedings shall not be instituted in England and Wales”— that also applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland— for an offence under any provision of this Act without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I know of no Director of Public Prosecutions or Attorney-General under any Government who would give comfort to the view that the pressures that we are discussing should influence a prosecution. Moreover, were such pressures put on paper or recorded, they would have to be disclosed to the defence, which would clearly help the defence’s case.
So the upshot is that now former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is even more venal than Jack Straw?