Jury refuses to convict

but free speech is still restricted

https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/england-acquittals-and-hung-juries-in-high-profile-palestine-action-trial

The question for the jury in this trial was what ought one be permitted to do to prevent the shipping of parts for F35 jets to Israel, those jets being used to deliberately slaughter civilians? Had I been on the jury I too would have refused to convict those charged for actions designed to frustrate the export of these arms.

In what must have been an unexpected consequence to some, I think the UK ban on the organisation "Palestine Action" has not been good news for Israel: It has provided an additional UK focus for peaceful protest against the slaughter of 70,000+ Palestinians in Gaza by a barbaric Israel. Forcing the UK police to arrest thousands of people protesting the genocide in Gaza is not a good look for the British state. Or for Israel. (Of course, a good look for Israel right now is impossible, so perhaps nothing has been lost.)

In the UK one can still be imprisoned for 14 years for expressing support for Palestine Action. Thousands have been arrested and still face trial. Thus free speech is muzzled. Legally one can express opposition but not support. Only being allowed to express one of these opinions I will express neither. When free speech is restored I will then allow myself to say whether or not I support Palestine Action. Note that logically neither my support nor opposition can be inferred from this statement. Were expressing opposition to Palestine Action illegal I too would be forced to be silent on the issue. What's next? Will I be compelled to express "beliefs" I am forced to hold, as if I have a little red book in my pocket in Chairman Mao's China?

I protest the increasingly authoritarian British state. I am pleased that I have recently moved to Ireland, which is far far less authoritarian in character. Unlike the UK, Ireland does not support Israel's slaughter of Palestinians. Nor does it supply arms to Israel. Whereas neither of those was the main reason for my move to Ireland, each factor provided some small encouragement.

I strongly agree with what I understand the jury's position to have been when they refused to convict any of the Palestine Action members in the recent Bristol Filton trial. In the abstract:

(1) Disruptive protest not only ought to be legally allowed, it is allowed under the law. For example. a protest in the street is necessarily disruptive and is allowed.

(2) Where one is forced into criminal damage to prevent a greater crime then this too is also legally allowed. For example: One is allowed to break the lock on a door to allow someone to escape a fire.

The question for the jury in this trial was what ought one be permitted to do to prevent the shipping of parts for F35 jets to Israel, those jets being used to deliberately slaughter civilians? Had I been on the jury I too would have refused to convict those charged with frustrating the export of arms.