this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
1237 points (97.9% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

12975 readers
232 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
givesomefucks@lemmy.world
1237
In 6 hours it will be illegal to say "I support Palestine Action" in the UK, with a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 5 days ago by als@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
302 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 119 points 5 days ago (7 children)

Just to be clear because everybody seems to be missing this point.

Palestinian Action, is an organisation. Membership of that group is banned, it is not illegal to support Palestinians or to call out Israel's genocide. The government doesn't like it when you do, but it's not actually illegal for you to do it.

This organisation broke into a UK air force base in order to protest. They are not being charged because they protested, they're being charged for breaking in and damaging a lot of military equipment. I think it's a bit far to call them terrorists, but you can sort of see the government's point, if you squint.

The UK government does however absolutely deserve to get it in the neck for their support of Israel. Labour have had a pretty awkward relationship with Israel in particular and anti-Semitism in general for a long time, and they're now keen to be seen as supporters, but there are limits.

[–] JustTheWind@lemmy.world 24 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Thank you for this clarification. This is an extremely important context. "Palestine Action" is the particular name of a very specific organization, so the title of the article is obviously a bit misleading.

Still very worrying and more than a bit concerning, though. Here's to hoping for a future strengthening of UK speech laws. Though, frankly, I'm not so sure about US speech laws anymore. Cheers.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works -2 points 4 days ago

Yes and I support that particular organization and the actions they perform. From what it sounds like reading the article, this very comment makes me a criminal in the UK

God bless the first amendment 🦅🇺🇲

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

I think it’s a bit far to call them terrorists,

Did you mean "a bit unfair"? Because I don't see how anybody would be terrorized by this. It's clearly illegal but using terrorism here is very problematic, especially since what the military does to people in the middle easy is actual terrorism but not called that.

Afaik the "anti-Semitism in Labour" was basically a made up smear by the Labour Party themselves to prevent Jeremy Corbyn getting elected. Not sure about other instances though.

[–] courval@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What anti-Semitism where they accused of?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I don't think it was ever anything concrete. Some members of the Labour Party made some comments that could potentially have been interpreted as being anti-semitic. Everyone went absolutely crazy, without anything in the way of evidence, and it caused a major political scandal. Labour themselves made the whole situation infinitely worse by not properly investigating the allegations, which made it look like they were trying to protect people. In reality I think it was just incompetence.

It was the very definition of a storm in a teacup, essentially nothing had happened but the opposition parties reacted as if it was some major scandal for the sole purpose of political point scoring.

Labour subsequently lost the 2019 elections and the suggestion was it was because of this scandal.

So when Starmer became leader one of the things he said he was going to do was root out anti-Semitism within the party (no matter how much he had to dig for it), this was around 2020 but he had been campaigning about it since around 2018. Anyway when he became leader there was a big bust up where he got rid of anyone he thought was being anti-semitic (again there was a lot of doubt about whether or not they were being). Then in 2024 they won the election. So ever since then they've been very careful to not appear anti-semitic to the point at which they are refusing to even acknowledge Israel's war crimes.

This is all especially annoying since they would have won the 2024 general election no matter what because the Conservatives were polling so badly. So this big arguement about anti-Semitism was completely unnecessary. Had it not happened Labour would still be in power, but would be less inclined to shy away from criticism of Israel.

TLDRAccusing Labour of been anti-semitic has been the default position of the opposition for a while because it works. Who cares about the truth anymore?

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The bit you've skimmed over is that it happened under Corbyn, who was hugely popular with Labour members for being actually Left Wing, and hugely unpopular amongst the entire rest of the political and media establishments (including Labour MPs) for exactly the same reason. Pretty much everyone on all sides who'd never given a toss about antisemitism before were suddenly pearl-clutching over the tiniest statement made by a backbencher's assistant's brother's gibbon because it was a handy way to bring Corbyn down without having to give any airtime to debating his (very popular) policies.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 6 points 5 days ago

they’ve been very careful to not appear anti-semitic to the point at which they are refusing to even acknowledge Israel’s war crimes.

And that's how you completely conflate the meaning of a word.

[–] courval@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Thanks for clarifying, I've heard about the accusations before but never really understood what they were accused of.. But I think the last couple of years of "anti-Semitism" left and right accusations aimed at individuals who are simply against the murder of innocent people help explain it. My guess is that some members of labour saw the Israeli regime for the terrorists they are ages ago and didn't shut up about it.. The Zionist lobby in the UK is obscene.. Shame on these crooks!

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, they lost an election over an antisemitism row a few years ago and have chosen the worst possible moment in history to start overcompensating for it.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 20 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It should be noted that it was the "please stop murdering children" kind of "antisemitism", not real antisemitism.

[–] TylerBourbon@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

The worst kind of antisemitismn, according to Isreal.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

They are not being charged because they protested, they’re being charged for breaking in and damaging a lot of military equipment. I think it’s a bit far to call them terrorists, but you can sort of see the government’s point, if you squint.

Out of curiosity, I looked up the US Federal definition of terrorism

definition

  1. the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-
    1. involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
    2. appear to be intended-
      1. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
      2. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
      3. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
    3. occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

Due to the element danger to human life, their definition wouldn't fit.

However, the UK legal definition

definition

  1. In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
    1. the action falls within subsection (2),
    2. the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][^F1] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
    3. the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial][^F2] or ideological cause.
  2. Action falls within this subsection if it—
    1. involves serious violence against a person,
    2. involves serious damage to property,
    3. endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
    4. creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
    5. is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
  3. The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(2) is satisfied.
  4. In this section—
    1. “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
    2. a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
    3. a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
    4. “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
  5. In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
is wild: no danger to human life required, merely serious damage to property suffices!

[^F1]: Words in s. 1(1)(2) inserted (13.4.2006) by Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11), s. 34; S.I. 2006/1013, art. 2 [^F2]: Words in s. 1(1)(3) inserted (16.2.2009) by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28), ss. 75(1)(2)(a), 100(5) (with s. 101(2)); S.I. 2009/58, art. 2(a)

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The UK definition isn’t that wild - the ‘ra used to plant bombs and then phone it in. There’s still terror seeing a building explode - knowing the only reason there aren’t casualties is because the bombers, this time, called it in with 15 minutes on the fuse.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 4 days ago

Acts dangerous to human life don't require actual casualties: if people need to leave to avoid death or injury, then that's an act dangerous to human life.

[–] catty@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

the action falls within subsection (2), the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][1] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public

Wow, so the very act of peaceful protest is now defined as 'terrorism' because the below can be very loosely interpreted in whatever way necessary:

creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public

I don't know: it's possible. If legal definitions & case law (which I don't know enough about) don't settle their meaning, then they could mean anything. A lawyer could clarify.

[–] catty@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

For sure. e.g. Block the road, you block emergency vehicles / assault on emergency workers = terrorism.

https://www.bailii.org/

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 4 days ago

Plain old traffic jams and collisions block emergency vehicles all the time. Doesn't seem to be a problem during these very normal things that happen all the time ... but protestors block a road and suddenly it's a huge problem.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 4 days ago

I see: that technically could.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They even forbid the playing of "Don't cry for me Argentina" during the wer to protect their Malvinas colony.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That would have been the Conservatives though. The Conservatives under Thatcher were in power during the Falklands war.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Same as in the US, that doesn't matter.
They will always support their regime wars.
R/D in the US or Labour/Cons in the UK.
Warcriminal Blair is a good example.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The actions one political party are irrelevant to the actions of another political party. Especially over the course of such time.

If you want to make the arguement that the labour party are warmongering then there's much that you can do to make that arguement but to equate the current situation to the Falklands war is disingenuous at absolute best.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

you are wrong