Manifestanti filo-palestinesi che cantano “globalizzare l’Intifada” nel Regno Unito rischiano l’arresto, conferma la polizia

> Greater Manchester’s Chief Constable Sir Stephen Watson and Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said in a joint statement: “The words and chants used, especially in protests, matter and have real world consequences. We have consistently been advised by the CPS that many of the phrases causing fear in Jewish communities don’t meet prosecution thresholds. Now, in the escalating threat context, we will recalibrate to be more assertive.

Aka there’s no legal basis for the arrests given CPS has explicitly stated it won’t reach prosecution. As such, there’s no ‘reasonable suspicion of an offence’ to justify the arrest! It’s unlawful!

———
From the [CPS website on comms offences](https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/communications-offences):

> The correct approach was confirmed in DPP v Kingsley Smith [2017] EWHC 359 (Admin). In that case, the Divisional Court noted (at paragraph 28(7)(i) of the Court’s judgement) that the mens rea for a grossly offensive communication contrary to section 127(1) is that:

> “the [offender] intended his message be grossly offensive to those to whom it related; or that he was aware at the time of sending that it might be taken to be so by a reasonable member of the public who read or saw it”.

> That approach was cited with approval by the Divisional Court in DPP v Bussetti [2021] EWHC 2140 (Admin). While attending a bonfire night party in November 2018, the defendant used his mobile phone to record a video which showed the burning of a cardboard effigy of Grenfell tower, in which 72 people tragically lost their lives due to a fire in 2017. He sent the video to two WhatsApp groups with limited membership, and the video was later shared on social media. The Divisional Court held “For the offence s.127(1)(a) to have been committed the sender must have intended or been aware that the message was not simply offensive but grossly offensive.” The court cited the threshold in Chambers with approval: “The fact that the message was in bad taste, even shockingly bad taste, is not enough.”

You would have a valid defence that a reasonable member of the public wouldn’t extrapolate a false meaning from it, though it’d come down to precedent set through case law because of the stupidity of the statutory law. The MCA is a complete dogshit, awfully written law and any decent, rule-of-law-enjoying government would radically amend the “grossly offensive” elements of the legislation given there’s no statutory definition of “grossly”, which is effectively an emotive and meaningless term; the “objective tests” for this which have been established in case law are not remotely objective. There’s nothing in the legislation, already obscenely wide and poorly defined, that would legally legitimise arresting people for chanting this.

From DPP v Kingsley Smith:

> (5) The resolution of that issue required, as made clear in the speeches of Lord Bingham (at [8]) and Lord Carswell (at [22]) in Collins, the application of an objective test, namely whether, taking account of the context and all relevant circumstances, and applying the standards of a reasonable person in an open and just multi-racial society, the court was sure that a particular message was grossly offensive to those to whom it related, or was of a menacing character – i.e. would have created a sense of apprehension or fear in a person of reasonable fortitude who had received or read it.

I really don’t think it’d legally stand to apply this to “Globalise the Intifada” to be honest, even with the weakness of the legislation.

——–

The motivation isn’t to pursue existing legislation or to uphold the law, it is an unlawful threat to intimidate and menace the public into silence to please pro-Israeli lobbying groups and the right-wing oligarchal media, who (rightly) view Palestine through the prism of broader left-right struggles and who view the political supremacy of “white civilisation” (of which Israel is the ‘vanguard’, as it openly claims in its official comms) as in their interests.

It is the **unlawful** intimidation and repression of our already truncated freedom of expression.

Thank you very much Keir “Charles I” Starmer, arbitrary government enjoyer. Love that the police now respond to the whims of the executive and don’t care about the actual law 🙂 :).

As one famous person probably once said: never let a tragedy go to waste. These days every terror attack is weaponised to restrict our civil liberties, even if said attack happened more than ten thousand miles away.

What a complete and total waste of police resources, not to mention a middle finger to the principles of free speech and peaceful protest.

Honestly this is the sort of regressive, performative nonsense I expect from Tory governments; it’s no wonder starmers administration is being deserted by labours traditional voter base.

Good?

For years now useless middle class morons have emboldened genuinely racist, anti semitic people to intimidate communities so they can feel progressive and righteous.

Hiding behind “oh I didn’t mean the widely accepted terms and connotations when I said the phrase” with a sense of smugness and 2:1 at Durham in Philosophy energy like they’ve found some loophole because they’re ever so clever.

Like in Manchester, If you’re “protesting” Gaza the days after a terrorist attack on Jewish people calling to “Globalise the Intifada” it’s really fucking clear what the implication and intent is.

But they think they’re so special because most of them have never faced any consequences in their lives. I hope the violent PA lot get the book thrown at them. Fuck Poppy, Jonty and Mungos hunger strikes