When is a joke a terrorism offence?

This joke can be found in the current edition of Private Eye:

According to police officers in Leeds, this joke is an offence under the Terrorism Act:

Thanks to the arrest of the man holding this placard, the above image is now circulating much more widely in the media. The Guardian alleges that an officer at the protest said, ‘If it’s in print, it’s fine. But if you carry it on the demo [it’s illegal]’.

For the benefit of anyone who is comedically challenged, this is a joke. The inverted commas around ‘PALESTINE ACTION’ make clear that it is not referring to a certain recently proscribed direct action organization. The point of the joke is to highlight the hypocrisy of a government that criminalizes opposition to war crimes in Gaza while turning a blind eye to those who are perpetrating those war crimes.

Church of the Holy Family, Gaza

The Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem has issued the following statement in response to yesterday’s attack on the Church of the Holy Family:

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem expresses its deepest condemnation and denunciation of the strike that targeted the Catholic Church of the Holy Family in Gaza City. This strike caused extensive damage and casualties to the parish complex, endangering the lives of innocent people, especially those with special needs and displaced persons seeking safe shelter within the church.

Targeting a holy site currently sheltering approximately 600 displaced persons, the majority of whom are children and 54 people with special needs, is a flagrant violation of human dignity and a blatant violation of the sanctity of life and the sanctity of religious sites, which are supposed to provide a safe haven in times of war.

The bombing destroyed large parts of the complex, and those with special needs were forced to evacuate the area, some of whom were unable to receive the respirators they rely on for survival, posing a direct threat to their lives.

At this critical moment, the Patriarchate affirms that churches are spiritual and humanitarian beacons, serving everyone without discrimination. It also calls on the international community and United Nations agencies to provide urgent protection for religious institutions and humanitarian centers in the Gaza Strip and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, which criminalizes the targeting of civilians and places of worship.

Our prayers accompany those affected, and we hope that wisdom will triumph over the machine of war, and that the voice of mercy will prevail over the din of fire.

Palestine Action

The government has designated Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. Anyone who is a member or even expresses support for it can face up to fourteen years in prison.

According to the home secretary who introduced the Act used to justify this proscription, ‘Terrorism involves the threat or use of serious violence for political, religious or ideological ends. It … aims to create a climate of extreme fear’. But since its formation in 2020 Palestine Action has restricted itself to protests, occupations, and criminal damage at various sites, particularly several associated with the Israel arms company Elbit Systems. What triggered the decision to proscribe the organization was the spray painting of two military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Nothing Palestine Action has done warrants the label ‘terrorism’.

Responding to the government’s action, a group of UN experts have stated:

While there is no binding definition of terrorism in international law, best practice international standards limit terrorism to criminal acts intended to cause death, serious personal injury or hostage taking, in order to intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act … The UK supported this approach in voting for Security Council resolution 1566 in 2004 … Mere property damage, without endangering life, is not sufficiently serious to qualify as terrorism. [My emphasis]

In my view, this action says more about the current British government than it does about Palestine Action. They have adopted a Humpty Dumpty (or, if you prefer, Big Brother) approach to language:

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’ (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass)

Playing fast and loose with language in this way is symptomatic of a gradual slide towards authoritarianism.