Thanking God (or not)

The theme of the Lent study group that I've been participating in had the theme of 'Saying thank you to Jesus' this week. It looked at this passge from Luke 17 (vs 11-19, NRSV):

On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee. As he entered a village, ten lepers approached him. Keeping their distance, they called out, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” When he saw them, he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were made clean. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice. He prostrated himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him. And he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus asked, “Were not ten made clean? But the other nine, where are they? Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” Then he said to him, “Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well.”

I don't really know what we are suppose to learn from this passage. It reads to me like a story very specifically addressed to (criticising) his Jewish audience (hence the reference to 'this foreigner') and when I encounter things like that in the bible I try to see how they would translate to Christians (that works well for the parable of the 'Good Samaritan' for example), but I don't really get it for this story.

So, here's my problems with thanking God or Jesus. 

In an interview a while back I heard the Revd. Luke Larner talk about some of the issues he has with a certain sort of evangelical Christian, and as an example he made reference to Christians thanking God for helping them get a parking-place at the supermarket. I remember that sort of thing from my days in 'Christian Union' groups when I was an undergraduate at Oxford. Someone gets lucky on a visit to a busy supermarket because a spot comes free as they arrive, so they give thanks to God/Jesus. (OK when I was an undergraduate it wasn't about parking cars - none of us had cars - but you get the idea.) We can laugh at that, but there's something quite insidious if, as is often the implication, if not explicit, that they see it as God singling them out for help because they are a Christian. It feeds into the 'chosen people' narrative. That we Christians are God' s chosen people (replacing the Jews). This idea of Christians being God's "Chosen People" comes up quite explicitly sometimes, and it is used to make Christian communities feel good about themselves. The trouble is that if you have chosen people by definition you have people that have not been chosen. God gave you that parking space rather than someone else. To see where that leads look at Zionism (both Jewish Zionism and Christian Zionism) which is used to defend Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. A bit of a stretch from thanking God for finding you a parking space at a supermarket and ethnic cleansing with genocide, you think?  I'm not so sure. It only seems absurd because we are safe and comfortable in England, insulated from the harm we are doing elsewhere on the world, and we can do that thing that we English are especially good at: hypocrisy. 

But there things that I want, feel the need, to give thanks for. There are lots of wonderful things in my life and it is good to appreciate them. For general things like the beauty of the world, for flowers and good weather, which are for everyone. There are also personal things that I'm grateful for, like my own good health and my friends and family. To be thankful, but not thanking God or Jesus for giving them to me, as though they are personal presents like the birthday presents from family members.

I would say, BTW, with a SoF hat on, that the need to give thanks is one of the purposes for creating God. We feel delight in the world and want a something/somebody to give thanks to - as well as something/somebody to blame for the bad things in the world. But that is whole other discussion for another time.

Coming back to the bible passage. Being healed from leprosy is clearly on a different scale from getting a parking space at a supermarket, but it is in the same category in the sense that if you are healed and someone else isn't, then it might seem that you have been 'chosen', or even 'deserved' to be healed rather than that other person. So I'm still struggling with knowing what, if anything, I should take away these verses, and for the moment don't have a lot of use for them.

Lift the Ban: Judicial Review of the Proscription of Palestine Action. Part 3: proportionality

Important Disclaimer! This is me, David Chapman, with no legal training, trying to make sense of what has gone on. I will come back to edit it as I understand things better. 

This is one of my Lift the Ban posts. See especially Part 1 and Part 2 of my discussion on the Judgement of the Judicial Review of the Proscription of Palestine Action.

Paragraph 25 in the introductory section (Section A) of the Judgement:

It is plain then that through the Underground Manual, Palestine Action encourages its members and others who align with it to plan and cause damage to property. There is no suggestion of restraint or proportionality. On the contrary, and entirely consistent with its objectives, Palestine Action encourages the causing of more, rather than less harm.

Note the sentence "There is no suggestion of restraint or proportionality." 

Whenever you refer to 'proportionality' there is a comparison involved. This is (or is not) proportional to this. As I allude to in Part 2 of my discussion, the judges when discussing Ground 2, commendably, spend a lot of time comparing the useful consequences of proscribing Palestine Action (prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes which are terrorism in the meaning of the 2000 Act) with the damaging consequences of the proscription (excessive infringement of the rights of individuals under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights). They conclude that the damage as a consequence of the latter outweighs the merits (in their opinion) of the former and therefore they uphold Ground 2.

When it comes to Paragraph 25, on the other hand, as far as I can see, there is no explanation whatever of what the harm caused by the actions of Palestine Action is being compared to when they say "There is no suggestion of ... proportionality."

I can only think that they don't address this because they don't like the answer. Because the comparison which is staring you in the face is with the genocide. And what is especially stark is the comparison of the destruction of 80% of the buildings in whole of Gaza with the damage to property perpetrated by Palestine Action. The thing is, one of the disputed aspects of the 2000 Terrorism Act is how it allows damage to property to be defined as terrorism. OK, there are indeed good reasons to recognise that damage to property can be terrible and can justifiably be deemed terrorism. Witness Israel's targetting of the hospitals of Gaza. 

In a way, I'm surprised that the judges kept the word 'proportionality' in the paragraph. The paragraph would have worked without 'or proportionality' and having it there cries out for the comparison with the destruction and genocide of Gaza. 

Lift the Ban: Judicial Review of the Proscription of Palestine Action. Part 2: the judgment

Disclaimer! This is me, David Chapman, with no legal training, trying to make sense of what has gone on. I will come back to edit it as I understand things better. 

This is one of my Lift the Ban posts 

The 'Open Judgment' of the court which undertook the Judicial Review of the Proscription of Palestine Action.

Content 

There are 150 numbered paragraphs in the judgment, divided as follows:

Part A 'Introduction' (paragraphs 2-46) sets the context, subdivided:

(i) The decision, the claim and the proceedings Paragraphs 2 - 8
(ii) The power to proscribe under the 2000 Act and the consequences of proscription Paragraphs 9- 14
(iii) Palestine Action Paragraphs 15 - 30
(iv) The Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Paragraphs 31 - 46 

Part B. Decision (paragraphs 47 - 145) addressing each of the four grounds for the review:

(1) Ground 8. Procedural Fairness. Paras 47 - 67 This ground was rejected by the judges
(2) Ground 5. Failure to consider relevant matters. Paras 68 - 71 This ground was rejected by the judges
(3) Ground 6. The decision to proscribe was contrary to the Home Secretary’s own policy. Paras 72 - 96 This ground was accepted by the judges
(4) Ground 2. Conventions rights Paras 97 - 145 This ground was accepted by the judges. Discussion subdivided as follows: 

(i) The claimant’s case Paras 97 - 98
(ii) Is proscription a specific measure or a general one? Paras 99 - 102
(iii) The interference with Convention rights consequent on the offences in the 2000 Act. Paras 103 - 106
(iv) Preliminary matters Paras 107 - 115
(v) The claimant’s evidence in this case Paras 116 - 124
(vi) Is the interference prescribed by law? Paras 125 - 127
(vii) The importance of the objective Para 128
(viii) Rational connection between proscription and the legitimate aims Para 129
(ix) Less intrusive measures Paras 130 - 134
(x) Has a fair balance been struck? Paras 135 - 142
(xi) Article 14 Paras 143 - 145

Part C.  Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (Paragraphs 146 - 149)

If I understand it right, this was an argument made by the Home Secretary that even if the court upheld Ground 6 (or any of the other grounds, except Ground 2), it didn't matter because it wouldn't have affected the decision to proscribe. The judges didn't agree with the Home Secretary on this point.

Part D.  Disposal Just one paragraph, paragraph 150, which says:

"For the reasons given above, Grounds 5 and 8 of the claim fail and are dismissed, but the claimant succeeds on Grounds 6 and 2 of her claim. To this extent the claimant’s claim is allowed. Subject to any further representations on relief, we propose to make an order quashing the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action."

However, the Home Secretary asked to be allowed to appeal, the court has allowed the appeal to proceed, and the judges have said that the proscription should remain in place until the outcome of the appeal (see Case number: AC-2025-LON-002122). So at the time of writing (26 Feb 2026), Palestine Action remains proscribed.

Some observations

1 The objectivity of the judgement.

I was expecting a legal judgment to come across as cold and impartial. I was thinking in terms of academic writing for which you are not supposed to use the first person and write instead in the passive voice. It is often in reality a pretence, but the idea is that you are presenting facts which are objectively true and independent of the author.  But that was not how it came across in the judgment. For one thing the first person is used throughout ('we' appears 52 times). 

For example paragraph 57

On consideration of the detail in this case, we do not accept the claimant’s submission that fairness required the Home Secretary to give Palestine Action notice that she was minded to exercise her power to proscribe, to provide such reasons as she could, and to permit Palestine Action to have the opportunity to make representations.

OK, as I said, even in academic writing the absence of the author is often a pretence and I guess it is the judgment of the judges, so maybe this is just my ignorance of how courts work.

But there was something else in there which I find more worrying. In places the writing comes across to me as 'taking sides'. 

Take, for example, Paragraph 23:

23 The core hallmarks of civil disobedience, namely the objective of seeking a change in the law or government policy, an approach to law breaking that is characterised by restraint and acceptance of the legal consequences of their actions, are emphatically not the hallmarks of Palestine Action’s campaign. Its campaign is intended to close down the operations of a company pursuing a lawful business. The campaign has not been pursued with restraint. The wide range of targets is significant. It lays bare that Palestine Action’s campaign and pursuit of criminal damage is designed to intimidate the persons and businesses targeted so they end their commercial relationships with Elbit. Palestine Action is not engaged in any exercise of persuasion, or at least not the type of persuasion that is consistent with democratic values and the rule of law.

(Emphasis added.)

My point is that 'emphatically' and 'lays bare' are things you say to convince someone, not just to describe something.

2 Why did they uphold the review?

As I explain above, I don't see the judgement as an 'objective' conclusion from the evidence. To be fair, I don't think absolute objectivity is possible, and maybe that is never what judges do. Perhaps they use their judgement... But also, as a number of people have observed, the conclusion almost appears, in footballing terms, to come "against the run of play". In much of the discussion their dislike of us lot, Palestine Action and those of us who joined the 'Lift the ban' campaign, is palpable. So why did they find in favour of two of the grounds? I've seen two explanations. 

Craig Murray has a sinister reading: he argues that they have set things up for the Home Secretary to win the appeal. He argues that they pack the judgement with reasons for not uphold the review, and then find in favour on the thinest of grounds which will easily be rejected on appeal.

One of the members of Huda's legal team, however, in a presentation to us 'Lift the ban' activists, has a different take which I find more convincing from my reading of the judgement. This is that while it is true that they, the judges don't like us and don't approve of the either Palestine Action or the Lift the Ban campaign, nevertheless they believe in international law and at a time when many countries are trampling over human rights embedded in international agreements like the ECHR they felt that is was important to put a marker down. You can see from the paragraph count above that their biggest concern addressed the ground that the proscription of Palestine Action interferred excessively with the human rights enshrined in Articles 10 and 11. They argued that even though three of the actions of Palestine Action had been terrorism in the definition of 2000 Terrorism Act, those crimes could be prosecuted in other ways and that proscribing Palestine Action had a disproportionate consequence on the human rights of other people. There is a lot of space given over to addressing this question of proportionality in the context of ground 2. While I applaud that, to my mind it provides an interesting contrast with another question of proportionality in the judgement, which I address in a separate post.

 

Lift the Ban: Judicial Review of the Proscription of Palestine Action. Part 1, timeline and overview

Important Disclaimer! This is me, David Chapman, with no legal training, trying to make sense of what has gone on. I will come back to edit it as I understand things better. 

This is one of my Lift the Ban posts 

1 The Home Secretary proscribes Palestine Action 

23 June 2025. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, made a written ministerial statement in the House of Commons. She explained that she proposed to make an order adding Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”). The draft order added PA, together with two other organisations—the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—to the list of proscribed organisations. It was affirmed by each House (the House of Commons on 2 July and the House of Lords on 3 July). 

2 Huda Ammori (PA) requests a Judicial Review

Huda Ammori (PA) requested a Judicial Review, submitting the papers on 27 June, including an application for interim relief to restrain the Secretary of State from making the proscription order or, if made before the hearing, to suspend its effect. 

3 Interim decisions

4 July 2025. Justice Chamberlain gave judgement on the request for the interim relief on 4 July (ref. [2025] EWHC 1708 (Admin)). Conclusion: the application for interim relief is refused. [Included in the judgement is a statement apparently indicating that Justice Chamberlain does not consider PA to be a terrorist organisation in the colloquial meaning of the word. But if this is a problem he notes that it has been for 25 years since it is to do with the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act of 2000.)]

The judgement is immediately appealed by Ammori and a decision as to whether an appeal will be allowed is given that same day. Court of Appeal: Lady Chief Justice (The Lady Carr), Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis. Judgement: Permission to appeal is refused. (ref [2025] EWCA Civ 848)

4 Proscription takes effect

Since the interim relief was not allowed, the proscription comes into effect as of 5 July 2025 (I think - need to confirm that date.)  

5 Judicial Review allowed

30th July 2025: Justice Chamberlain gives judgement allowing a Judicial Review: "I grant permission to apply for judicial review on grounds 2 and 8, but refuse it on all the other grounds." (Ref. [2025] EWHC 2013 (Admin))

These are the eight grounds from Ammori:

• Ground 1 that the order is ultra vires and/or was made for an improper purpose
• Ground 2 that the proscription order is contrary to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 because it is incompatible with the rights of the claimant and others under Article 10, 11 and 14 ECHR.
• Ground 3 that PA is not “concerned in terrorism”.
• Grounds 4 and 5 These grounds allege that the Secretary of State took into account irrelevant considerations, namely the views of the Israeli Government, Elbit Systems and pro-Israel lobby groups, while failing to take into account matters which told against proscription.
• Ground 6 that the Secretary of State failed to apply her published policy
• Ground 7 that the Secretary of State breached the public sector equality duty in s. 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
• Ground 8 that the decision was taken in breach of natural justice and/or in breach of Article 6 ECHR because PA was not consulted in advance.

6 Home secretary appeals (and not only loses but gives the Review more grounds!

17 October 2025 Judgement from Court of Appeal (Lady Chief Justice (The Lady Carr), Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis) ref. [2025] EWCA Civ 1311

Conclusion:  We dismiss the appeal. Two further grounds added to those allowed by Justice Chamberlain:

• Ground 5 that the Secretary of State failed to have regard to relevant considerations
• Ground 6 that the Secretary of State failed to apply her published policy

So after the appeal, the Judicial Review will proceed, with four grounds:

• Ground 2 that the proscription order is contrary to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 because it is incompatible with the rights of the claimant and others under Article 10, 11 and 14 ECHR.
• Ground 5 that the Secretary of State failed to have regard to relevant consideration
• Ground 6 that the Secretary of State failed to apply her published policy
• Ground 8 that the decision was taken in breach of natural justice and/or in breach of Article 6 ECHR because PA was not consulted in advance.

7 Decision of the Judicial Review

The Judicial Review was due to be heard by Justice Chamberlain, but just before it commenced he was removed and replaced by a panel of three: Dame Victoria Sharp DBE, President of the King’s Bench Division, Mr Justice Swift, and Mrs Justice Steyn DBE. It was generally believed at the time that this change was detrimental to the case for Ammori. I've no idea how the decision on who hears the case is made, or who has the authority to make it and make changes. 

The judgement was issue on 12 February 2026 (ref [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin)). To general surprise, the judgement was:

150 For the reasons given above, Grounds 5 and 8 of the claim fail and are dismissed, but the claimant succeeds on Grounds 6 and 2 of her claim. To this extent the claimant’s claim is allowed. Subject to any further representations on relief, we propose to make an order quashing the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action.

So the two that were allowed were:

• Ground 2 that the proscription order is contrary to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 because it is incompatible with the rights of the claimant and others under Article 10, 11 and 14 ECHR.
• Ground 6 that the Secretary of State failed to apply her published policy

(It is perhaps worth noting that Ground 6 was only under consideration because the Home Secretary appealed the decision to allow the review!)

Despite the decision, the press-release associated with the judgement said:

The court has directed the parties to provide written submissions by 20 February 2026 on the terms of the order that should be made in the light of this judgment. [150] Palestine Action remains proscribed until further order of the court because the court has yet to hear argument on whether there should be a stay of any order setting aside the proscription Order pending the possibility of an appeal.

The proscription Order remains in force until further order of the court...

(TBH, I don't understand that because it references paragraph 150 which is the paragraph that I quote (in full) above. Maybe it is the "Subject to any further representations on relief".)

The judgement is 46 pages with 150 numbered paragraphs. I have read it all and, while I struggle to understand a lot of it, there are things that I want to address, which I will do in another post.

Lift the Ban: Gaslighting

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command". George Orwell, 1984 

The word of the decade surely has to be Gaslighting [1]. I thought this during the smears against Jeremy Corbyn, but it has been off-the-scale over Gaza.  (One of my Lift the Ban posts.)

I've been delaying writing this because there's so much I want to say, but it is so important, to my mind, that I'm going to get something down and published, even if I have come back change it. (I almost certainly will.)

Israel is committing ethnic cleansing and genocide [2]. For more than two years, it has been slaughtering Palestinian men, women and children in the most ruthless way imaginable ("shooting fish in a barrel"). It, Israel, has commited the most hideous of crimes. I'm not going to go through the details: they are readily available for anyone not wilfully turning away. Saying otherwise is a lie: gaslighting

Britain is complicit. Both main political parties and all the mainstream media is 'on the side of' Israel. The lives of Palestinians are worth infinitely less than the lives of Israelis. See Peter Oborne's book and my post Britain's Complicity in Genocide: Peter Oborne’s Litany. To pretend that Britain has made any effort to hold Israel to account is obviously not true: gaslighting. 

Palestine Action is a direct action protest group. They are not a terrorist organisation. Mr Justice Chamberlain has accepted that Palestine Action is not a terror organisation in the ‘colloquial’ meaning of the term (see David Renton, What is the Meaning of Support, London Review of Books, v47 n14/15 14 August 2024). How can anyone look from Palestine Action vandalising warplanes to the IDF killing 20,000 children in Gaza and Israel torturing prisoners and claim that the former is the one which is terrorism? Gaslighting.

Perhaps the most insideous gaslighting, though (because it enables everything else), is the claim that speaking out against the crimes of Israel is antisemitism. The large number of Jews who do just that - speak out against the crimes of Israel - somehow, incomprehensibly, counts for nothing. Gaslighting.

 Notes 

1 I'm sure everyone reading this knows the meaning of Gaslighting. If you don't, you can easily find it on the web but I also recommend watching the 1944 film that gave it it's name: Gaslight.  It has a specific meaning in relationships, describing a type of psychological abuse, but more generally it is the manipulation of someone into questioning their perception of reality.

2 In a recent podcast in which Chris Hedges talks with Norman Finkelstein there was what I think a key insight: genocide is not the goal of Israel: the goal is ethnic cleansing. Israel wants rid of all Palestinians, and genocide of one of the methods being used to achieve the goal. Israel is making Gaza uninhabitable so that the Palestinians have to leave, but if they stay and die, that is OK with Israel.

 

Britain's Complicity in Genocide: Peter Oborne’s Litany

‘A litany’ in the common meaning is ‘a sizeable series or set’ (Merriam Webster), but for me the specific religious usage is more meaningful. See The Litany from the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England: https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/litany.

The CofE Litany headlines our sinfulness and need for forgiveness, starting thus: “O God the Father of heaven: have mercy upon us miserable sinners” and although I have profound problems with a lot of it, at the same time I love it! I love its structure and the way it is used (not that it is used very often these days, as far as I know), if not all of its content. There’s a lot more I’d like to say about this litany (I differ from many other liberal Christians in the importance I place on our sinfulness and need for forgiveness, for example), but that is for another time.

When I read the text below from Peter Oborne’s ‘Complicit’ (OR Books, New York and London, 2025, pp 258-261), it sounded to me very much like a religious litany. To my mind, that 'we' in the introductory paragraphs, meaning 'Britain', rightly indicates that I, as a Briton, can't escape at least some degree of responsibility.

See what you think.

---------------

The Role of Britain

We bear a heavy responsibility for the deaths in Gaza, third in line only behind Israel and its primary patron and collaborator the United States. We helped enable the daily slaughter, destruction, disease, starvation, and human misery. We could have stopped arms sales. We could have sanctioned Israel. We could have ended military support.

We could have come to the aid of the Palestinians. We could have supported a special war crimes tribunal, as we did in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. We could have submitted evidence at The Hague, as we did after the Bosnian Genocide. We could have deployed sanctions, as we did against Putin, and held Israel's leaders personally accountable for their atrocities. We could have sent British navy ships to Gaza to relieve the blockade. We could even have made the moral case for a no-fly zone over Gaza to protect its inhabitants, as we did to protect Kurds against Saddam Hussein

• Damn you Keir Starmer. Damn you Rishi Sunak. Damn you Lammy, Cameron, Cleverly. A second damn for Lammy for shaking Benjamin Netanyahu's bloodstained hand.

• Damn you Mitchell and Falconer, the bag carriers.

• Damn you Lindsay Hoyle, Commons Speaker who wrecked a ceasefire motion and got Starmer off the hook.

• Damn the Foreign Office officials who put their pensions before Palestinian lives.

• Shame on the British military which trained, advised, and supported the genocidal Israeli army. Damn you Admiral Sir Tony Radakin. As chief of the defence staff you had the power to stop this. You have brought Britain's armed forces into disrepute.

• Damn the arms manufacturers who have profited from supplying the Israeli military. Damn you BAE Systems, profiteers from death.

• Damn the special relationship. It's led Britain into a cesspit.

• Damn the politicians and journalists who never reported on or cared about the deaths of Palestinian journalists targeted and killed by Israel.

• Damn the blood-soaked British newspaper industry. Damn you Murdoch. Damn you Rebekah Brooks. Damn you Victoria Newton, editor of The Sun. Damn you Tony Gallagher. You are The Times editor who awarded space to Yoav Gallant, wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes including the use of starvation as a weapon of war and crimes against humanity. Damn you Professor Niall Ferguson for co-writing that article. [1]

• Damn you Chris Evans, editor of the Daily Telegraph, for turning your newspaper into one of Israel's propaganda tools. Damn you Zanny Minton Beddoes of The Economist. You allowed your renowned journal to denounce the International Court of Justice genocide judgment as a ‘show trail’ [2]. You knew that Israel was turning Gaza into a 'hellscape' yet still demanded: 'fight on' [3].

• Damn you Daily Mail editor Ted Verity and your offshore proprietor Lord Rothermere. Damn you Michael Gove. Damn The Spectator.

• Damn the ignorant, lavishly paid, cruel, canting newspaper columnists and studio hosts. Damn the know-nothing reporters who peddled lies and twisted the facts. Damn the reporters who were too afraid to search out the truth.

• Damn those who passed by on the other side. Damn the Archbishop of Canterbury, who refused to meet a Bethlehem pastor [4]

• Damn the moral cowards at the top of the BBC: Samir Shah, Robbie Gibb, Tim Davie, Richard Burgess. Damn you for failing to understand the meaning of the great institution you have disgraced, or why it mattered so much.

• Damn the atrocity deniers. Damn those who treated Palestinians as less than human. Damn those who viewed Palestinians as statistics. Damn the ideologists. Damn the 'clash of civilisation' barbarians. Damn the Great Replacement conspiracists. Damn the neoconservatives – never embarrassed, humbled, or sated.

• Damn the extreme right for your bigotry and racism. Damn you Nigel Farage. Damn you Tommy Robinson. Damn you Douglas Murray.

• Damn you Priti Patel. Damn you Kemi Badenoch.

• Damn the self-appointed guardians of public discourse who smeared those who marched for peace as terror supporters. Damn Suella Braverman. Damn Yvette Cooper.

• Damn the supporters of Israel who turned the charge of antisemitism, one of the great evils of human history, into a cheap propaganda weapon to cover for Israeli crimes.

• Damn the lobbyists. Damn you Conservative Friends of Israel. Damn you Labour Friends of Israel – with a second damn for your disreputable jolly to Tel Aviv at the height of the slaughter. [5]

• Damn those who didn't care. Damn those who did care but were afraid to act. Damn those who intimidated them into inertia. Damn the cowards and the careerists.

• Damn those who put power before morality. Damn the pragmatists. Damn those who had their doubts but didn't voice them.

• Damn those who didn't know. Damn those who didn't want to know. Damn those who didn't understand. Damn those who didn't want to understand.

• Damn all who were complicit in this brazen, public, and protracted crime against humanity.

I expect you all think you will get away with it. You have in the past. But the world may be starting to change.

 

Notes and references.

1 Niall Ferguson and Yoav Gallant, ‘Israel Has Done Most of the Job – now Trump Can Finish It’. The Times (20 June 2025)

2 Editorial, ‘Charging Isreal with Genocide Makes a Mockery of the ICJ’, The Economist (18 January 2024)

3 Editorial, ‘Why Israel Must Fight On’, The Economist (2 November 2023)

4 On the grounds that he had shared a platform with Jeremy Corbyn MP. The archbishop, to his credit, later apologised to Pastor Munther Isaac. Patrick Wintour, 'Pastor Says Welby Would Not Meet Him If He Spoke at Palestine Rally with Corbyn, The Guardian (21 February 2024).

5 'LFI Delegation Visits Israel and Palestine as Conflict Reaches 600 Days’, lfi.org.uk (30 May 2025). See also: Hamish Morrison, 'Labour Politicians Fail to Declare All-Expenses-Paid Trip to Israel’, The National (14 July 2025).

Lift the Ban: reflections from cell number 6 at Kentish Town Police station

This is one of a series of posts about my experience of the Defend our Juries (DoJ) 'Lift the Ban' campaign. See my Lift the Ban page for more.

Note: this is work in progress and I shall be coming back to edit it from time to time.

OK, I'm not writing this in the cell. It is four month later but these are thoughts that at least began in the cell on 9th August 2025.

  © Copyright Jim Osley and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

 

I was locked in the cell in Kentish Town Police station for a total of about 4 hours. (I'm not sure exactly how long I was in there. I was in a state of, not shock, but bewilderment for most of the day, and after my arrest they took my phone and my watch off me which was surprisingly disorientating). After 67 years of complete conformity with the law and coming from a 100% law-abiding family, it felt quite incredible when they locked the cell door.

Now here though is what I wasn't expecting: I felt an extraordinary sense of peace locked in the cell. Trying to understand this, I think that some sources of deep-seated anxiety had been cleared by what I had done and what had happened. This is how I explain it (at the moment, ie, provisionally)

1) I'd done something completely aligned with my religious faith. There's an almost paradoxical twist to this, because my religious beliefs have become increasingly less 'real', and yet more sincere, in the past year (while I've been editor of Sofia, the magazine of the Sea of Faith Network). It was like as if I was, for the first time in my life, sincerely serving God - but it was a God that I didn't believe existed and I was fine with that! There's a lot more that I want to say about this, the 'religious' angle, but that is for another, later, post. 

2) I'd done something brave, or at least 'authentic'. I've never thought of myself as brave person (a bit timid and maybe cowardly, if I'm honest) and was gobsmacked at what I'd done! 

3) I found that I wasn't afraid of what might be to come. In the short term I wasn't in any real danger. The police were treating me OK (they'd even given me what was really quite an acceptable vegan pasta dish to eat) and I knew that I would be released some time in the next few hours and that I could get home safely. But also longer term, I realised that if the worst case scenario came about and I ended-up (I end-up: this is still a possibility, albeit unlikely) spending some time in jail over the next few years, I was, sort of, OK with that because of #1 above. 

I found myself thinking about how much I've time got left. I'm 67 and my parents both remained healthy into their mid to late 80s so I'm reckoning on up to another 20 years, but I've lost a couple of friends of my own age just this year, so who knows? Would I resent having to spend some of my remaining precious years of life in jail? My answer was again a surprise to me because it was 'no', if it is for a good cause. I found myself thinking of my future years as 'capital' and I should chose how to spend it. I am going to die eventually, and I want to use my remaining life for something meaningful. Opposing genocide is meaningful.