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
I'm more shocked it hasn't already happened to Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain or Just Stop Oil.
But I guess blockading motorways and rocking up to art museums dressed like extras from a Wham music video and defacing paintings makes you less of a threat than wanting Netanyahu to stop his genocide of the Palestinian people.
Still, calling blocking motorways and defacing painting terrorism is a stretch.
SHOULD CHANT IT WHILE LOOTING LONDON
UK , USA , who’s next ????????
That's good reason to remind people, that law is written by particular people, mostly to protect those people interests.
Not only is the ruling wrong - it is the very thing it claims to be opposing. It is itself an act of terrorism, carried out with the intention of inspiring fear in the British public to further a political agenda.
In every way, the British government is replicating the actions it accuses PA of - except that the scale of harm to British society and the terror inspired is magnitudes greater, and performed in service of the opposite political goal.
This is a terror attack by the government against the British people.
The British people's opinion and will are the thing from which the goverment gains it's only source of legitimacy - and they do not line up with the government on this issue.
But evidently the government believes in a different model of legitimacy: they believe that legitimacy is derived from the mere fact that they hold power. In the mind of the government and it's supporters, the difference between a terrorist organisation and a legitimate goverment is just power and only power. To them, right and wrong has absolutely nothing to do with it. They think that they are winning, and that they are going to get away with it. Nothing else matters.
Feeding, housing and guarding someone for 14 years has got to be ridiculously expensive. All for uttering a few words.
Do prisoners in the UK do slave labor like in the US?
change the name of your org, make them play wack-a-mole.
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.
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.
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.
What anti-Semitism where they accused of?
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.
TLDR
Accusing 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?
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.
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.
It should be noted that it was the "please stop murdering children" kind of "antisemitism", not real antisemitism.
The worst kind of antisemitismn, according to Isreal.
The most widely celebrated circumstance in the world is being rid of the British government. It’s spawned many holidays.
It is of course somewhat disingenuous to equate the empire to the modern British government. In much the same way that it makes no sense to say that Japan in its current form has any relation to feudal Japan.
They can take it to EU court. oops haha. This is why the elites pushed for Brexit. It wasn’t just to repatriate their money from Cayman Islands tax free. It’s so they can suppress anyone that doesn’t bend the knee.
The UK is still a party to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Any major difference to the universal declaration on human rights?
Funnily enough the rights themselves are broadly similar, but the European Convention on Human Rights established the European Court of Human Rights, so being a party to the treaty means we are still within ECtHR's jurisdiction.
Edit: for anyone who may be confused, the Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU] - sometimes called the European Court of Justice [ECJ] is the court that enforces the law of the European Union [EU]. This includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [CFR]. On the other hand, the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] is a treaty drafted by the Council of Europe [CoE] that provides for the European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR].
So when the United Kingdom [UK] was a member of the EU, then the UK was still subject to the CFR, enforced by the ECJ (except not really because the UK opted out of the CFR (except yes really because the opt out was worded in a way such that it was essentially only symbolic)), and also subject to the ECHR, enforced by the ECtHR. After the UK left the EU, the UK was no longer bound by the CFR or the ECJ (except insofar as it still is, because of Northern Ireland [NI]), but it still is a member of the CoE and bound by the ECHR and the ECtHR.
Theoretically, the Equality and Human Rights Commission [EHRC] in the UK is responsible for promoting the rights of the ECHR, in addition to rights of the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010.
I hope that clears everything up for people.