Utopia Talk / Politics / Palestinian Action Ruling

Seb rank	Mon Jun 15 13:47:34 Seems very sensible to me. We can't really allow a group like that to operate freely; though I think the automatic criminalisation I support isn't really suitable. Though of course I'm sure the free speech defenders on this board will agree with that. A lot of very silly people with criminal convictions because they equated supporting this one, violent, group with supporting Palestine and opposing genocide.
jergul rank	Mon Jun 15 15:07:48 Literally a guilt by association ruling. It opens the door wide for infiltration and false flag agitation as only a minor number of transgressions will result in a mass ban of an otherwise effective grass-roots organization. Tell me with a straight face that Mossad would never contiplate infiltration and agitation.
Seb rank	Mon Jun 15 15:17:33 No it doesn't. Most of the key considerations in supporting the proscription relate to establishing the nature of the group: 1. The contents of the underground manual and it's emphasis on covert violent action 2. The violent, and escalating violence and extent of PAs actions and the evidence the govt had through police operations of their plans 3. The refusal to disavow or renounce those actions. The level of infiltration required to meet these threshold amounts to operational control of the group. A genuine protest group with an infiltrated agent provocateur can avoid all three of these tests being met by simply kicking out the provocateur and disavowing the action, and removing the materials the provocateur is publishing on their website. I'm far more worried about Russian influence operations to drive protest groups towards sabotage operations, or facilitating groups like PA to mobilise in the first place. Something we already know they are successful at doing is getting western citizens to undertake sabotage operations under false pretences or money. The idea that Mossad is going to shut down every protest group with agent provocateurs is quite fanciful.
jergul rank	Mon Jun 15 15:39:04 Or, if we wanted to avoid the argument ad ludicrum fallacy, is the idea fanciful that Mossad might infiltrate some anti-genocide organizations now that the payoff is so clear? The big problem is conflating anti-zionism with anti-semitism incidentally. Driving anti-genocide organizations underground is definitely fueling that issue. And yes. Guilt by association. Support of a predominantly peaceful anti-genocide organization in any way is now a crime in the UK. The UK doing its best to prove CCs global conspiracy correct. GG. And by the way. Why worry about Russian infiltration when you are emulating Russia's managed democracy concept so well by yourself?
jergul rank	Mon Jun 15 15:40:05 See the Febuary high court ruling for details on my argument.
Seb rank	Mon Jun 15 16:38:14 Jergul: You whole idea is argumentum as ludicrum. Again, I'd suggest to meet the threshold PA met, Mossad would need to actually take over the group completely, and turn it into a group that functionality met the definition. At which point I'd agree, yes, it should be band because what would have functionally happened then is Mossad was actually running an actual organisation that should be proscribed; and if caught those Mossad agentes and Israel should be addressed the same way Russia and GRU would be. What it can't do is have one or two people attack a British military base as "branch members" of a large peaceful group and get them proscribed. That wouldn't work. The tests wouldn't be met, because the parent organisation would simply say "nah, fringe members, nothing to do with us, we disavow violence and we are kicking them out". The thing you have to remember here is PA doesn't dispute that it supports property destruction and attacks on lawful organisations, it doesn't dispute that this will bring them into violent confrontations with police and employees. It doesn't dispute that it advocates for attacks on British military equipment. It explicitly believes these things are good and justified *and that is central to the reason it is proscribed*. As for driving anti-genocide organisations underground - firstly there's only one "anti-genocide" organisation that has been prescribed and it is the one that has decided to define anti-genocide as violently attacking and destroying property and buildings of lawful companies, their employees, UK military and police that are not in anyway engaged in genocide or supporting genocide. Secondly he organisation in question was operationally underground already, with an manual about how to create covert cells and plan attacks - the only "open" part was its ability to publish that material and raise funds, disruption of which is warranted and beneficial. "Support of a predominantly peaceful anti-genocide organization" The whole ruling hinges on the fact that the organisation *isn't* predominantly peaceful. It is explicitly violent towards lawful business. I would tend to agree that the UK needs an instrument that bans this kind of group without criminalising idiots for holding up a sign saying "I support this proscribed group". "Why worry about Russian infiltration " Well, because of the whole string of sabotage operations they've committed across Europe including the UK, which are actually real things, unlike this imagined Mossad op.
Seb rank	Mon Jun 15 16:39:01 "See the Febuary high court ruling for details on my argument" That would be the ruling the appeals court just completely took to pieces as flawed?
Seb rank	Mon Jun 15 16:49:36 Cf. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyxlnzrq41o Or indeed, another conviction today of the guys who burned a car connected to Kier Starmer at the behest of a Russian speaking person who approached them on telegram offering money. Infiltration is definitely an issue, and groups that do become essentially sabotage groups should be shut down; and the best way to prevent that happening is that protest and civil disobedience groups understand the criminal consequences of straying into those areas.
Seb rank	Mon Jun 15 17:04:22 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r2l352z2do There was no mention in the trial of what the posters put up by Lavrynovych on EL's orders actually advertised: a purported far-right group called Direct Action UK. The group sought to appear as an organic British creation. But we found that Direct Action was created online by Russian operatives to cause division among ordinary people in the UK. Messages sent in the group bore a Moscow timestamp, used Cyrillic letters, and placed pound signs at the end of numbers, rather than at the start - as in Russian. The accounts that were principally involved in running Direct Action, particularly EL's, were using other channels to promote Russian political goals and using Russian to communicate. Direct Action first appeared online in autumn 2024, after the riots that followed the Southport murders, and its propaganda exploited images from the disorder. A photo of a phone showing a message from one of the accounts linked to Direct Action UK, with a graphic showing a Union Flag, a molotov cocktail and a police car. The message says "Fire + Police car = 2.500£ for you", using the Russian style for writing currency figures. Image caption, Direct Action offered cash for attacks on police - but used currency symbols in the Russian style Its social media channels, which the posters were advertising, featured videos branding Sir Keir a traitor, promoting hatred of Muslims and offering money for violence and arson, including attacks on mosques and police. Direct Action also lionised Tommy Robinson. "This is war," the group declared. But, although Direct Action was fake, it generated real-life attacks. In London, six mosques and an Islamic school were vandalised last year after the group offered payment for Islamophobic graffiti. Slogans such as "remigration" and "Stop Islam" were spray-painted on mosques from Croydon in the south of the capital to Leyton in the east. Direct Action turned video clips of the vandalism into brash social media videos, to amplify hatred and create fear. The morning after a mosque and primary school had been vandalised by a Direct Action attack in Leyton, EL posted an innocent-sounding ad in a chat group for Ukrainian people seeking work in London: "Part time job today! Leyton District. You need to take pictures of two buildings." He wanted images of the aftermath, so the vandalism could be publicised online. Even Direct Action's apparent support on the ground was fake and only existed because it paid people to act. When Lavrynovych himself carried out actions for EL he did so for financial reasons, the court heard, not because he shared Direct Action's ideology. --- The real risk here is around normalising this kind of protest group and getting all the Sam Adams types burning down refugee centres. As had actually happened.
Seb rank	Mon Jun 15 17:06:00 Also lol at two tier policing. Direct Action is obviously a group that should be proscribed but the govt appears to be frightened to.
jergul rank	Mon Jun 15 17:12:47 Yes, me and the high court. So ad ludicrum. Perhaps read up on what it means? The magatards in this forum are not wrong. The UK does have a mean authoritarian streak. Mossad has a long history of covert operations in Europe. It gets a pass because, ironically, genocide. Now, that you think civil disobediance is a terrorist response to ongoing genocide, then that is fair enough. Very establishment English to think that way. That is why the history of British imperialism is paved in blood. You think that way. Yes, civil disobedience groups should understand the concept of guilt by association. How else can the UK practice effective managed democracy?
jergul rank	Mon Jun 15 17:14:59 Seb "We will defeat Russia by becoming Russia".
Seb rank	Mon Jun 15 17:41:10 Jergul: "Now, that you think civil disobediance is a terrorist response" Do you think breaking into a factory, smashing a police officer with a sledge hammer, breaking into a military base and sabotaging a plane are merely civil disobedience? What about burning down Jewish ambulances? I guess you agree with NaMBLA that burning down an immigrant house is also peaceful protest too? Come on now, let's not insult each others intelligence in the way the deplorables do. All of the above clearly go way way beyond what can reasonably be called civil disobedience. They aren't merely nonviolent unlawful actions like e.g. refusing to comply with segregation laws or chaining yourself to the gates of a factory. These are all violent criminality that recklessly endanger the public or state functions. In the case of PA, these were not fringe elements of the group, this was the core membership and a central part of their reason for being. They actively supported it on their website, they publish a manual that actively calls for it. I don't disagree Mossad does influence operations in Europe; however I'm saying that the vector you suggest - Mossad attempt to discredit a group to the point it's proscribed - would require it to have such control over the group that in practice it would need to have become (under their influence) functionally something that should in fact be banned. And I'm just not convinced that's really possible. Against that we have numerous examples of foreign states seeking successfully to influence UK groups and citizens into sabotage operations. "civil disobedience groups should understand the concept of guilt by association" Again, let's not insult eachother's intelligence. PA supporters - the idiots merely holding up a placard - who are guilty by association. I agree the law wasn't really crafted with this kind of problem in mind but a more clear cut world before crypto currencies and social media created this hybrid space. PA itself and it's membership and those funding it though, they aren't guilty by association. They are straight up guilty. Destroying property, attacking police, breaking into a military base and damaging planes, incitement to firebomb factories - those are all crimes whatever your supposed motivation is. What protest groups need to understand is - as I think you do despite your poor rhetoric above - that delineation between civil disobedience like a sit-in and actual violent crime and terrorism.
Seb rank	Mon Jun 15 17:43:13 And no, I don't think it is totalitarian to say that actually, a group that is dedicated to physically attack UK defense industry and infrastructure with the goal of putting it out of operation, should not be allowed to organise and raise funds and exist as a legal entity. That would be mad.
Seb rank	Mon Jun 15 17:52:13 Now you might argue that the folks holding up placard saying "I support PA" are engaging in civil disobedience. I think I agree with that. I think it's very different from holding up a sign saying "I support Al Qaeda", let alone you know, actual material support. But this is largely a side effect of the law which was drafted with the latter in mind; not a world of Russian influence ops, hybrid warfare and idiots that want to cosplay being the international brigades in the Spanish civil war without the actual danger of actually taking on the actual Israeli state or discomfort of travelling abroad.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: