• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.K.'s Prime Minister Kier Starmer's government Arrests ~900 Peaceful Pro-Palestine Protesters in the

Felis Leo

Reformed Republican
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
19,365
Reaction score
34,348
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
...because these folks came out in support of Palestine Action, which was designated a terrorist organization by the British government because they threw red paint on a couple jet fighters.

Almost 900 people were arrested at London Palestine Action protest, police say

British police said on Sunday they had arrested almost 900 people at a demonstration the previous day in support of Palestine Action, and the government appealed for people to stop demonstrating in support of the banned campaign group.
www.reuters.com

The UK is a failed state led by tyrannical wolves-in-sheep's clothing. Discuss, I guess.
 
Last edited:
The story I saw said that the majority of those arrested were senior citizens...
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
The UK is a failed state
Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree with this statement.

Felis Leo said:
led by tyrannical wolves-in-sheep's clothing. Discuss, I guess.
Click to expand...

I'm very uncomfortable with how the law is being applied here. It's perfectly reasonable to designate an organization as a terrorist group.

But to arrest people who are not members of that terrorist organization simply for exercising their right to express their opinion is a bridge too far.
 
Labeling organizations as “terrorists” for protesting, as Felis Leo described, is not even remotely “reasonable”
 
Allan said:
I wouldn't agree with this statement.
Click to expand...

That is fine. I am being slightly hyperbolic. Only slightly though.

Allan said:
I'm very uncomfortable with how the law is being applied here. It's perfectly reasonable to designate an organization as a terrorist group.
Click to expand...

I just cannot agree, Allan. Great Britain has been affected by genuine acts of terrorism before, from the Troubles to lone wolf attacks by al Qaeda and ISIS affiliated terrorists who went on to, you know, murder lots of people. It is not reasonable to designate Palestine Action a terrorist group. Throwing red paint on planes is not an act of terror.

Allan said:
But to arrest people who are not members of that terrorist organization simply for exercising their right to express their opinion is a bridge too far.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Unfortunately, there is no such right insofar as I am aware in Great Britain. If you publicly advocate and protest on behalf of a proscribed organization, you are treated as a terrorist supporter. It is insane.
 

Here's a question that we should consider.

Both the US and Canada have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.

What would happen in our respective countries if we had a Hamas flag and protested across the street from a Synagogue?
 
Allan said:
Here's a question that we should consider.

Both the US and Canada have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.

What would happen in our respective countries if we had a Hamas flag and protested across the street from a Synagogue?
Click to expand...

I do not know about Canada, but generally speaking, here in the United States, you are allowed to rock terrorist organization paraphernalia as long as you do not engage in violent/criminal conduct or incite others to do so. However, if a bunch of protesters showed up to a synagogue waving Hamas flags and banners, here in the United States, they would probably be arrested under the pretext that the people were engaging in some form of criminal threat. However, that is because the United States government is deeply Zionist-Fascist and is doing whatever they can get away with. Not because there is a genuine desire to protect Jews. If a bunch of neo-Nazis waved swastika flags in front of a synagogue, those people would protected because the right of free speech of white supremacists and National Socialists is sacrosanct in the United States.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Throwing red paint on planes is not an act of terror.
Click to expand...

Definitely would not be in Canada.

Felis Leo said:
Agreed. Unfortunately, there is no such right insofar as I am aware in Great Britain.
Click to expand...

Found this...

There is no general right to the freedom of speech in the UK;[1] however, since 1998, limited freedom of expression is guaranteed according to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied in British law through the Human Rights Act 1998.[2]

Censorship in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Felis Leo said:
If you publicly advocate and protest on behalf of a proscribed organization, you are treated as a terrorist supporter. It is insane.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the case.
 

I looked up Canadian terrorism laws and it looks like I could fly a Hamas flag. The law specifically prohibits materials inciting terrorist acts, but not a flag.
 
I'm not sure the UK was ever truly committed to free speech, but they seem openly opposed to it these days. If they're not jailing people for protesting against one side in a war they're prosecuting people for their views on gender.
 
NatMorton said:
If they're not jailing people for protesting against one side in a war they're prosecuting people for their views on gender
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of this?
 
NatMorton said:
I'm not sure the UK was ever truly committed to free speech, but they seem openly opposed to it these days. If they're not jailing people for protesting against one side in a war they're prosecuting people for their views on gender.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and to be clear, I think most of the people arrested in those cases are hateful, squalid pieces of human garbage. But I sure as Hell do not believe they should be arrested, tried and imprisoned for openly hating trans people (again, short of inciting violence). I think one should be allowed to be a miserable, hateful person.
 
Sadly, not entirely surprised by UK on this. You could argue well that these days UK is neither about freedom of speech or expression, and have resorted to their own brand of modern day centralized authoritarianism.
 
NatMorton said:
I'm not sure the UK was ever truly committed to free speech
Click to expand...
Obviously not if they haven't gotten around to writing their own laws on the matter.

We (Canadians and Americans of European descent) are here in a lot of cases because our ancestors wanted an existence free of tyranny.

So it's not a huge surprise that we're further along in codified rights laws.
 
It all depends on how you define "hate." Some consider a simple assertion that there is no such thing as trans child to be "hate."
 
NatMorton said:
It all depends on how you define "hate." Some consider a simple assertion that there is no such thing as trans child to be "hate."
Click to expand...

Yep. I certainly consider it hateful. But I am not a king whose good graces bring material reward and whose ill will brings death. As long as one only damages their own children and does not do anything to other people's kids beyond an open and even vociferous public expression of their opinion, I do not think it is worthy of arrest.

Hatefulness should only be met with the hatred, scorn and obloquy of one's peers. Not criminal punishment.
 
NatMorton said:
Re gender, I was thinking of the case of Graham Linehan.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I looked up the criminal charges against him. I've posted the Wikipedia summary below along with my comments...

In April 2025, Linehan was charged with harassment and criminal damage following an incident at the Battle of Ideas conference in London in October 2024.[82][83][84] Linehan was charged after allegedly posting abusive comments about Sophia Brooks, a 17 year old transgender activist, and damaging her phone during a confrontation. In May, Linehan pleaded not guilty to both charges at Westminster Magistrates' Court and was released on bail with a condition not to contact Brooks.[85][86][87] His trial began on 4 September.[88][89][90]

In the case above I can see a charge for damaging the phone but disagree with the harassment charge. The trial has just started so we'll see how it goes.

On 1 September 2025, Linehan was arrested after arriving at Heathrow Airport on a flight from Arizona. He was arrested on suspicion of inciting violence and questioned in relation to three posts on X, including one in which he posted: "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."[91]

Meh...the guy is a comedian. I'd say artistic licence applies to his 'threat'.
 
Others would consider it a statement based on the science of genetics and in opposition of the progressive left's belief standard doctrine for gender.
 

What were the "abusive comments?"

(And I agree, if the phone was damaged there's a property issue there, but I don't think that's what's motivating the prosecution.)
 
Right! Societies that criminalize vandalism are the pinnacle of totalitarian, authoritarian oppression of the masses!!! People should have ZERO right to travel the streets of their cities freely! It's the protester's right to obstruct traffic and the general peace! Busses, police and pedestrians are mere symbols of the authoritarian state so block them from everything and stand up for what YOU believe because YOU, NOT THEY are the only mother****er that matters in this world!!!
 
But there's a difference between being arrested for blocking traffic (which I fully support) and being arrested because you're a member of a group.
 
NatMorton said:
What were the "abusive comments?"

(And I agree, if the phone was damaged there's a property issue there, but I don't think that's what's motivating the prosecution.)
Click to expand...
The abusive Twitter posts are nowhere to be found.

I did find a Guardian article detailing the confrontation with Sophia Brooks.

Graham Linehan ‘relentlessly’ posted abuse about trans teenager, court told

Prosecution tells hearing Father Ted writer’s posts about Sophia Brooks, 18, were ‘oppressive and unacceptable’
www.theguardian.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…