The right to protest is sacrosanct - this ban is an eye-opener

The Herald Scotland

10 hours ago

Evidently, this is not a definition some governments apply to themselves. Least of all the Israeli state. Iran and other actors in the Middle East are defined as terrorist states, why not the country which is terrorising an entire population in Gaza? Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the breath taking hypocrisy of its application, it is a persuasive definition.
Read More:
Except that last week, Westminster effectively extended that definition to include non-violent acts against property. I choose to express my support for Palestinians through other means than those employed by Palestine Action. However, those who say they support Palestine Action, irrespective of whether they are even involved in any action of non-violent civil disobedience, could be jailed for up to 14 years. That cannot be right.
There is a place for protest in our society. It's sacrosanct. It's non-negotiable. It's a human right, after all, and should be held dear by all those who seek to uphold free speech and civil liberties.
On a daily basis, whether that be in our social media feeds of highly politicised algorithms, or within the column inches of our written press with particular editorial slants, there's hardly a shortage of commentators who proudly proclaim their free-speech credentials as if it's somehow a twisted game of top trumps.
There's a plethora of largely repetitive, shock-jock media personalities whose entire existence is predicated on being able to say what they want, free from consequences or persecution, because of our right to expression.
They're all oddly silent on this one. Curious. The champions of speech appear to have lost their voice. Where are they then in the charging of activists who protest genocide and speak up for Palestine? They're found missing in action.
Our history is teeming with examples of acts of civil disobedience. From blockades to boycotts to occupations, there are a range of tactics groups use to get the message across. They may have to face criminal consequences and often history is the judge of whether their cause is just. But terrorists? I don't think so.
Taking action to protest injustice has a long history in the trade union movement. The word "strike" itself originates from the actions of sailors in who removed the sails of their bosses' ships, rendering them immobile.
The Upper Clyde shipbuilders 'work-in' of 1971-72, where workers occupied the yards, is one of the most seminal and successful actions in our movement's history. It also explains why we still have any shipbuilding left on the Clyde today. In 2017, workers in Fife used those same tactics – illegally occupying the Bifab renewable yards – to prevent them closing. They were praised by politicians across much of the political spectrum, and rightly so.
And of course, a hundred years ago the suffragettes used civil disobedience, including disrupting events and damaging property, to fight for women's right to vote. It may have been controversial at the time, but it helped win women the right to vote.
I've done it myself. In response to P&O's abhorrent sacking, en masse, of their staff, alongside the RMT and Nautilus, we blockaded the entrance to Cairnryan. There have been been flashmobs, musical interludes, walkouts, impromptu speeches in hospitality venues during full service – the tactics are varied. They're all forms of direct action.
If I was arrested, does that mean I should be charged as a terrorist? Hardly.
Why then should it be different for those protesting for Palestine? There is more than a suspicion that it's the issue not the nature of the protest that some people have a problem with.
You may not agree with Palestine Action's tactics, messaging, or political objectives. In fact, there have been times when their actions have alienated our members - defence workers who are just going to work.
But there's a huge difference between protesting and engaging in actions of civil disobedience and then proscribing that under terrorism offences. You don't necessarily have to agree with the tactics of a direct-action group to know that it's not acts of domestic terrorism.
To say so, as was decreed by Parliament on Wednesday night, is deeply misguided.
The vote itself, lobbing in Palestine Action with the rather worryingly named neo-Nazi Moldovan 'Maniacs Murder Cult' and the Russian Imperial Movement group, hammers home the ham-fisted way ministers have sought to look tough on protesters.
Politicians didn't have a choice on the merits of banning each group individually. Whilst I'm sure there's many good reasons for banning a group called 'Maniacs Murder Cult', for example, to punt them all together is a deliberate muddying of the waters by the Home Secretary in a flagrant attempt of false equivalence.
Imagine these powers in the hands of a far-right government? These powers could be extended to any group the Government doesn't like – including trade unions. In fact, just look across the pond where last month David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union was arrested and jailed as he observed the ICE raids in Los Angeles.
If the apparatus of the state can be rallied to use wide-ranging, broad-brush legislation to stamp out, what could be, legitimate protest then we must take a stand.
We do so because the trade union movement doesn't just pick and choose which parts of freedom of expression and protest, we like and don't like. Unlike the self-titled free-speech champions who have mysteriously abandoned their post on this one, we'll stay consistent.
Protesting genocide is not terrorism. Speaking up for Gaza should be treated the same as advocating any other cause and any attempt to unduly criminalise those who do should be resisted.
Roz Foyer is general secretary of the STUC