Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Periodic reminder that "direct action" is merely a progressive euphemism for "domestic terrorism." #ICYMI I've conveniently compiled a collection of security cam, GoPro & body cam footage of the break-in Elbit Systems UK for which "Palestine Action" domestic terrorists were sentenced today & for whom Zack Polanski here is...

86,348 просмотров • 20 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

🇬🇧 As a UK lawyer addressing the Prime Minister's inaction towards armed gangs running the streets, it's important to evaluate the legal framework and the Prime Minister's obligations under the law 🇬🇧 UK Legal Obligations and Potential Offences of the Prime Minister 🇬🇧 1. Dereliction of Duty. The Prime Minister, as the head of the government, has a duty to uphold the law and ensure the safety of the public. Ignoring armed gangs and dismissing public concerns could be seen as a failure to fulfil this duty, potentially amounting to dereliction of duty. 2. Misconduct in Public Office. The common law offence of misconduct in public office applies when a public official willfully neglects to perform their duties or acts in a way that amounts to an abuse of the public's trust. Ignoring violent gangs and accusing the public of racism for their concerns could be interpreted as such misconduct. 3. Negligence. Under civil law, negligence occurs when someone fails to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person. The Prime Minister's inaction could be seen as a form of negligence if it can be shown that it has led to harm or risk to the public. 4. Breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. The European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, protects individuals' rights to life (Article 2) and security (Article 5). The state's failure to address violent gangs could be seen as a breach of these rights, especially if the violence results in harm to individuals. 5. Incitement to Racial Hatred. While the Prime Minister is accusing the public of racism and far right extremism, it's crucial to ensure that his statements do not incite racial hatred, which is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986. However, this is more about ensuring balanced rhetoric rather than an offence the Prime Minister himself might be committing. Potential Offences Committed by the Armed Muslim gangs. 1. Possession of Firearms and Offensive Weapons. Under the Firearms Act 1968 and the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, carrying firearms and other weapons in public without a license is a serious offence. 2. Public Order Offences. Their actions likely violate the Public Order Act 1986, prohibiting behaviour that causes harassment, alarm, or distress. 3. Terrorism Offences Chanting extremist slogans while armed could fall under the Terrorism Act 2000, which includes the glorification of terrorism and inciting violence. 4. Incitement to Violence. Encouraging violent acts is a criminal offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. 5. Affray. Engaging in behaviour causing others to fear for their safety violates the Public Order Act 1986. 6. Trespassing and Damage to Property Likely offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 if they are trespassing and causing property damage. 7. Conspiracy to Commit Offences. Organizing and participating in coordinated attacks is a conspiracy to commit multiple offences, punishable under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Conclusion The Prime Minister's inaction in the face of such blatant lawlessness is deeply troubling. It could be construed as misconduct in public office or even negligence, given the duty to protect the public and uphold the law. Moreover, the public's concerns are legitimate and should be addressed with due seriousness, not dismissed as racist or far right extremism. This is a critical issue requiring immediate and effective action to maintain public order and trust in the government. Share,like,follow and comment for your opinion to be heard. 🇬🇧

Marx Anthony

369,415 просмотров • 1 год назад

Francesca Albanese on Fire: A Lesson to Canada 🇨🇦 on International Law and Palestinian 🇵🇸 Rights "The priority is to stop the genocide. If the government here, the parliamentarians here want to call it a 'Ceasefire,' call it the way they want, but this is the priority. The rest is secondary. Which doesn't mean that the recognition of the State of Palestine is not important. My question is, if this country has entertained discussions on the two-state solution, how come it does not recognize the state of Palestine yet? What is there to be debated? The recognition of Palestine 🇵🇸 shouldn't take time; it should be automatic and be an act of coherence. Otherwise, if you don't recognize it, it means that you shouldn't be talking about it at all. Why are you even a voice in the debate? It's about coherence. I know what I'm saying is blunt, but we need to be blunt because the impunity that has been granted to Israel for decades has led to this, which is a disaster both for the Palestinians and the Israelis. Again, diplomatic talks have been turned into a place to justify the unimaginable, the illegal... Is Canada spending any of its political capital to make sure that the genocide ends as soon as possible, the ceasefire, whatever, but then there is already a deadline set for the end of occupation? The ICJ has passed an advisory opinion which declares the occupation unlawful and to be dismantled unconditionally and totally as rapidly as possible, and that 'as rapid as possible' has been defined by the General Assembly; it must happen by September next year. What is Canada doing to ensure that the Occupation is dismantled? And then, more than these, there is Apartheid. I know that in this country, you feel uncomfortable with the word 'Apartheid,' but you have to tell me why? Because I, together with Israeli human rights organizations, Palestinian human rights organizations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Harvard University, and thousands of Israelis, talking about Apartheid, give you the evidence of it, and here, like in other parts of North America, I hear, 'Hmm... we cannot say that word.' It's your problem... International law is so clear that it doesn't allow you to find excuses. So, however, end the genocide, end the Occupation, end the Apartheid; this is what it means to apply international law and help build peace for Palestinians, Israelis, and anyone who calls that land home." — Francesca Albanese at a Press Conference in Canada. Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt

The Compass Report 🧭

31,969 просмотров • 1 год назад

The Singaporean has been arrested after he being defrauded? Why is the NDC Regional Chairman Ashie Moore still free? I know this turn of event follows For The Records exposé on this issue Let’s revisit what the law says from the Political Party Act 2000 (Act 574) PART III-FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES Section 23: Contribution by Citizens. Only a citizen may contribute in cash or in kind to the funds of a political party. A firm, partnership, or enterprise owned by a citizen or a company registered under the laws of the Republic at least seventy-five percent of whose capital is owned by a citizen is for the purposes of this Act a citizen. Section 24: No Contribution by Non-Citizens. A non-citizen shall not directly or indirectly make a contribution or donation or loan whether in cash or in kind to the funds held by or for the benefit of a political party and no political party or person acting for or on behalf of a political party shall demand or accept a contribution donation or loan from a non-citizen. Section 25: Contraventions of this Part. Where any person contravenes section 23 or 24, in addition to any penalty that may be imposed under this Act, any amount whether in cash or in kind paid in contravention of the section shall be forfeited to the State and the amount shall be recovered from the political party as debt owed to the State. The political party or person in whose custody the amount is for the time being held shall pay it to the State. A non-citizen found guilty of contravention of section 24 shall be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and liable to deportation under the Aliens Act, 1963 (Act 160). The provisions of sections 23 and 24 do not preclude a goverment of any country or a nongovernmental organization from providing assistance in cash or in kind to the Commission for use by the Commission for the collective benefit of registered political parties. The law is clear on this and we expect the NDC Chairman to refund the money sponsored by Toh You Kang into their campaign to the state. Total Abuse of Power! Scam Aban!

For The Records

58,823 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Israel is the excuse to snatch away freedoms we once took for granted: In interviews and a comment article over the weekend, the UK education secretary Bridget Phillipson made clear she plans to exploit the pause in the Gaza genocide to snuff out criticism of Israel’s criminal actions – and, of course, her own government’s collusion in that criminality. Naturally, the British establishment media have been keen to amplify her message that there will be painful consequences both for individuals who continue protesting against Israeli atrocities and for institutions, such as universities, that mistakenly assume they have a duty to uphold centuries-old freedoms by tolerating such protests. These protests, let us remember, are fully in line with a ruling last year from the International Court of Justice, the world’s highest court, which declared: a) Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory and enforcing a system of apartheid rule over the Palestinian populations there – and has been doing so for decades. b) Western governments are obligated to do what they can to bring that illegal occupation and Israel’s apartheid system to an end as quickly as possible. Instead, those same governments are violating the ruling, and international law, both by continuing to support Israel’s criminality and by preventing their own citizens from putting pressure on them to end their support. The government of Keir Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, has even categorised protest against genocide as “support for terrorism”. For the first time in British history, a direct-action group, Palestine Action, has been banned as a terrorist organisation – in its case, for targeting weapons factories in Britain arming Israel’s genocide. It is now illegal to express any support for the group. In a commentary in the Sunday Express, Phillipson said she wanted the government’s campaign against free speech to go even further to protect Israel. She intends to import to our shores Donald Trump’s full-frontal assault on academic freedom. She has written to vice-chancellors warning them that their universities face fines and public funding cuts should they allow students to protest on campus against Israeli genocide and apartheid. She added: “I’m clear the buck stops with universities when it comes to ridding their campuses of hate. Institutions have my full backing to use their powers to do so and keep their students safe.” But as the rest of the article made clear, the universities don’t just have her “backing” to act against the protesters. They will be compelled to crack down on protests against Israeli apartheid and genocide – what she calls “hate” – or face stiff financial penalties. This comes in the wake, as Phillipson notes, of separate plans announced by home secretary Shabana Mahmood to give the police further powers to outlaw protests that have a “cumulative impact”. In other words, the police will be empowered to crush the very kind of protests that discomfit governments the most – those that are repeated because there is a strength of popular feeling to which the government is utterly unresponsive. It should hardly need pointing out that western governments are most likely to be unresponsive when it is their own criminal behaviours that are the target of protest, whether it is their collusion in Israel’s genocide or their collusion with corporations to gut meaningful action to halt climate breakdown. Though you would not know it from the media’s cheering, what the British government is doing is stripping out the last vestiges of the right to protest, a right that has been under relentless assault in the UK for the past 40 years. Phillipson’s Sunday interview with Trevor Philips on Sky was illustrative. He pushed the education secretary to be even more draconian in hollowing out speech and protest rights, as well as academic freedom. In turn, Phillipson sought once again to rationalise the government’s demolition of the last pillars of a free society on familiar grounds: as a supposed fight against antisemitism. After conversations with Jewish students and their parents, Phillipson said she had come to appreciate that they are “worried about what it is to be a young Jewish person on campus at the moment in the UK, and we can’t tolerate that”. The reality is that the police already have plenty of powers to deal with what she called antisemitic “harassment and intimidation”. Forces have the government’s backing and wide social support to tackle real race hate. So why are the police not cracking down on these antisemites supposedly roaming our university campuses? The answer – the one Phillipson wants to conceal from us – is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases she’s referring to, Jewish students are not the victims of an attack or even of personal criticism. They have simply been made uncomfortable by the presence of other students exercising a basic democratic right to protest in the public space of a campus – in this case, against Israel’s genocide in Gaza and our own government’s material, diplomatic and financial support for it. Any discomfort felt by some Jewish students flows not from the actual protests but from the fact that these students have been raised as Zionists. They have been raised with a political ideology that makes them identify with Israel. They have chosen to associate their Jewish identity with a state the World Court has declared is both illegally occupying Palestinian territory and enforcing a system of apartheid rule over the Palestinian population. It is not the protesters making an association between Jews and Israel. It is the Zionist Jewish families Phillipson has spoken to – and non-Jews such as Phillipson and Sky’s Philips who think like them. There is a quick fix to this “problem”, one that does not involve shredding the right to protest and freedom of speech, or fining universities who allow students to protest. And that is for the British government, and the British media, to stop treating Israel like it is a normal member of the community of nations – after it has just committed genocide and, on a very best-case scenario, is about to return to a status quo in which Palestinians are brutally abused under systems of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and siege. It is for the British government and media to make clear to Zionist Jewish families, and those non-Jews who think like them, that it is not okay to identify with a criminal state, or to expect any special privilege – protection from being offended – when others want to criticise that criminal state for its criminal actions. There are plenty of British Jews who do not identify with Israel. In fact, many are repulsed by its actions and take part in anti-genocide demonstrations like the one at the weekend in London. Anyone offended by the protests needs to engage in some serious soul-searching. Their offence signals not just an identification with Israel, but an endorsement of its actions, including its genocide and apartheid rule over Palestinians. So why is the government getting this issue so wrong? Here we get to the nub of the matter. The British establishment, including the government and media, are not a disinterested party simply concerned with protecting Jews. Rather, they are an elite desperately trying to protect their own interests in a system of US-driven military supremacy that confers on western powers a sense of their complete entitlement to control over the world’s material resources, most especially in the oil-rich Middle East. Israel is a central pillar of this criminal, militarised enterprise, which is why it needs to be protected at all costs. That cost has included hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed and maimed in Gaza over the past two years. But it also includes the freedoms and rights we once took for granted. Now we see that these freedoms were only ever on licence from the ruling class – a licence that is being revoked now that we have proved too unruly, too defiant, too rebellious.

Jonathan Cook

44,135 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад