New UK rules: all criminal damage against Israeli interests is now terrorism

In disturbing news from the UK, five Palestine Action activists who were convicted of causing minor criminal damage to a branch of Barclays Bank in Burnley in August 2024, as shown in the photo, are now being told that the precedent established last month with the Filton 4 might mean that the judge in their case will augment their sentences, in September, via a “terrorism connection” that was not mentioned to the jury, and that was not mentioned at all during their trial.

See my article about the Filton 4 and the “terrorism connection” here: andyworthington.co.uk/2…

The direct action was taken to protest about Barclays’ investment in Elbit Systems, Israel’s biggest arms company, and, ironically, it contributed to a commitment by Barclays, in October 2024, to sell all its shares in Elbit. It’s also worth noting that the action took place before Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organization, and, crucially, as the Guardian reported, that it “was not assessed by the home secretary nor officials to be a terrorism incident.”

As the Guardian also noted, “Similar offending by climate activists has not been deemed to have a terrorist connection. For example, seven Extinction Rebellion protesters were given suspended sentences for causing more than £100,000 of damage by breaking windows at Barclays’ London headquarters in 2023.”

In the fiction-based dystopia that the UK is swiftly becoming, in relation to Israel at least, the damage caused allegedly cost £212,000, although no basis has been provided to justify such an extortionate amount of money, which seems to have been invented, as is generally the case with the alleged “costs” of direct action.

The five convicted defendants are Brendon O’Hagan, 28, Amanda Kelly, 31, Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31, Mohammed Malik, 28, and Alma Yaniv, 70, and, as Malik said after the judge’s intention was made public, “The judge and the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] are now seeking to sentence us as terrorists for red paint and a few splintered windows. This goes far beyond the charges before the court and raises serious concerns about the increasing use of counter-terrorism legislation to persecute political dissent. The attempt to now sentence us as terrorists demonstrates the extremely dangerous precedent set by Judge Johnson, who sentenced four Palestine Action protestors as terrorists for destroying Israeli quadcopter drones.”

The Guardian also spelled out the particularly punitive aspects of being sentenced for an augmented “terrorism connection” noting that, “In the Filton case, the activists received lengthy custodial sentences. They will also be subject to 15 years of terrorist notification requirements on release, which includes informing police of any new device, relationship, bank account or address.”

As the Guardian also noted, “A terrorist sentencing also means defendants’ serve at least two-thirds of their tariff in prison, much longer than is the norm”, adding, in an Orwellian twist that I hadn’t heard mention of before, that “to obtain parole they must rescind their political views.”