Robert Inlakesh
The Palestine Chronicle / September 7 2024
The ongoing weaponization of anti-terrorism laws to arrest and silence journalists without any clear indication of what they have done wrong, is revealing the current British Labour government’s inconsistencies and hypocrisy.
While the UK’s new Labour government has canceled a small portion of its weapons export licenses to Israel and even withdrawn its objection to the International Criminal Court issuing arrest warrants for the Israeli PM and his Defense Minister, it is simultaneously launching a campaign targeting its own pro-Palestinian citizens.
The ongoing weaponization of anti-terrorism laws to arrest and silence journalists without any clear indication of what they have done wrong, is revealing the current British Labour government’s inconsistencies and hypocrisy.
When British Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced the cancellation of 30 out of 350 weapons export contracts, it admitted that it believes Israel may use those weapons/weapons components in serious breaches of international law.
If London knows that the Israeli government has been committing war crimes, or has reason to believe they will with their weapons, why only cut off a fraction of the weapons export contracts?
After all but admitting that the Israelis are committing violations of international law, why then continue to arm them in any way?
Also, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has withdrawn the former administration’s protest of ICC prosecutors’ call to issue arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, which was another step towards allegedly holding Israel to account for its actions.
Despite all of this posturing, the British government allowed Israeli soldiers, who directly participated in what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) considers to plausibly be a genocide, to return to the United Kingdom untouched and even allowed them to attend public speaking events.
Worrying trend
In a worrying trend, the British authorities have decided to pursue journalist Richard Medhurst and Palestine Action co-founder, Richard Barnard, using Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
While Medhurst addressed his arrest in late August, upon arriving at Heathrow airport, stating that he categorically rejects the claims that he supports or is engaged in terrorism, he also stressed that he wasn’t told what he actually said to provoke the arrest and was treated like a criminal.
For Medhurst, he has publicly expressed that the arrest and the fact that he must surrender himself to authorities for an interview in three months, is actively hindering his work as a journalist due to a factor of intimidation. He has stated that he fears that his words could again be twisted to make his case more severe and he has no idea whether he will be charged under the Terrorism Act or let go.
Barnard helped co-found the Palestine Action group in 2020, which has actively sought to prevent weapons factories and companies that aid in arming the Israeli military, to halt all operations on British soil. Tactics like occupying the factories, barricading areas, spraying red paint on walls and even directly destroying weapons equipment have been employed by the group.
While there are two charges placed against Barnard for incitement to commit damage, the most concerning is evidently the allegation that he has spoken in support of a proscribed terrorist group, which is assumed to be Hamas, although his case is unclear.
From Palestine Action, there are also 16 activists who have been handed jail sentences of up to 16 months. Of those are a group known as the ‘Filton 10’ who were all initially detained for a week under the Terrorism Act, before being later pursued for non-terrorism-related charges.
In the case of five activists who were arrested in Scotland, after having occupied a weapons factory and reportedly inflicted over 1 million pounds in damages, they were handed prison sentences. According to the judge who gave such heavy 12, 14 and 16-month custodial sentences, the punishments were intended to set an example.
Similarly, in the cases of three women who were dealt 12-month conditional discharge sentences for a terrorism-related offense, the Deputy Senior District Judge, Tan Ikram, confirmed that they didn’t intend to support Hamas, but that their “lesson had been learned” after crossing the line.
The three women wore backpacks with images of paragliders attached to them, symbolizing one of the methods that Palestinian fighters used to breach Israel’s separation fence on October 7.
This occurred prior to the above-mentioned cases and was not under the current Labour government, but it demonstrates how such individuals are made examples of.
The case of Sarah Wilkinson
Then there is the case of Sarah Wilkinson, a social media personality who would post to her hundreds of thousands of followers on a daily basis.
She has been involved in countless non-violent efforts to support the Palestinian cause, even traveling to Jordan in order to help encourage an aid airdrop program for starving Palestinians in northern Gaza and attempting to set sail on a humanitarian flotilla to bring supplies to the people of Gaza.
At least a dozen balaclava-clad anti-terrorism police raided the 61-year-old activist’s home and arrested her, also seizing her devices. She has since been prevented from continuing her online commentary and allegedly banned from using electronic devices.
While the allegation is that she posted something online in support of Hamas, there has been no publicly presented evidence that confirms this.
In all of these cases, there is a similar pattern of intimidation and example-making. These are clearly politicized cases and so far there has been no evidence presented publicly of any explicit support for terrorism by the UK authorities.
Especially at a time when the British government is itself admitting that it has knowledge of Israeli violations of international law, it begs the question as to why it would be going after critics, journalists and activists who are working to oppose Israeli violations of international law.
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker
