Lift the Ban: Graduation Day 30th July 2026

 I intend to take part and commend it to anyone else who feels as strongly as I do.

 Read all about it here.

 

Lift the Ban: Escalation video

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.

WARNING - Replicating this video comes with significant risk of arrest under the UK Terrorism Act. Before doing so, you should read our Action Briefing Document IN FULL at www.defendourjuries.net/savinglives. An arrest under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act could mean house raids, tech stolen by police, and potentially up to fourteen years in prison. 

Note: I'd put the video on the Defend our Juries YouTube channel, which included a slightly edited version of my video, but that has been taken down by YouTube for 'violating their Term of Service'. You can instead see a snippet from my video in this instagram post.

This is a transcript of my full contribution in the original YouTube video:

“One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will always have been against this.”

Hello my name is David and I’m a retired University Academic who used to teach the theory and methods of information technology and telecommunications

The other thing I’d like you to know about me is how incredibly law-abiding I was for the first 67 years of my life.

I once got a speeding fine because I didn’t notice the speed limit on a road in Bletchley, but that was about the limit of my law-breaking

So when I was arrested on the 9th August last year and locked in a police cell in Kentish Town it was surreal, and not a little frightening

So what changed?

What changed is that my government has been complicit in genocide.

Complicit in war crimes, in ethnic cleansing and in genocide

Those words that I read at the beginning of the video are on the cover of a book by the American journalist Omar Al Akkad and I’d like to read you something more from that book.

Quoting Palestinian Poet Rasha Abdulhadi he says:

“Wherever you are, whatever sand you can throw on the gears of genocide, do it now. If it’s a handful, throw it. If it’s a fingernail full, scrape it out and throw. Get in the way however you can”

Palestine Action has been throwing sand into the gears of genocide and THAT is why I support them, and that is why I ask you to support them too.

Saving lives is not terrorism. I support Palestine Action and I urge you to do so too.

 

Lift the Ban: Third Arrest 12th June 2026.

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.

Just a holding page for the moment, to keep the sequence of events in place 

Outside Woolwich Crown Court when the (awful!) judge passed sentence on the Filton 4.

Slight change to the placard wording for this one: 

Saving Lives is not Terrorism. I Support Palestine Action

I was taken to Plumstead police station. (They weren't doing street bail this time which was unfortunate because this time I would have been happy give them my full details so that I could get street bail on go home earlier.) So it all the usual routine as before - including the fact that they really struggled with the electronic finger-print machine! 

My arrest appeared in a photograph in the i-newspaper!

 

Lift the Ban: second arrest 11th April 2026

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.

Things haven't got any better. There is supposedly a ceasefire in Gaza but the killing of Palestinians continues almost daily. Alongside the assault in Lebanon and the hostilities with Iran, Israel continues its policy of ethnic cleansing in both Gaza and the West Bank. World opinion seems less and less sympathetic to Israel, and more and more commentators and politicians in the UK are condemning what they are doing, but that doesn't lead to real pressure on Israel. They were even allowed to participate in Eurovision (unlike Russia) and their football teams are still welcome in international matches (again, unlike Russia). But more importantly Britain continues to allow arms exports to Israel.

Palestine Action remains proscribed (despite the Judicial Review saying the proscription was unlawful), and brave and idealistic young people have spent months in prison before even coming to trial. Some of them eventually found not guilty: more than 18 months in prison and not guilty of anything! 

So on 11th April 2026 I participated in the DoJ 'Everyone Day' action. After the Judicial Review judgement the Met Police initially said they wouldn't make any more arrests pending the outcome of the Home Secretary's appeal of the Judicial Review, so originally DoJ thought we wouldn't be arrested on Everyone Day - but the Met changed their minds and we were 😒.

I sat in Trafalgar Square and on the stroke of 1pm, wrote on a placard "I oppose Genocide. I support Palestine Action". I was duly arrested, put in a police van (a 'Pixie': no-one seems to know why they are called that!) and taken to the triage point. Then, because I again managed to remain anonymous (so they couldn't give me Street Bail) was taken to a police station for processing. This time it was Peckham.

There isn't a lot more to say about it really. I could do some comparisons between Kentish Town and Peckham (perhaps I should put them up on Trip Advisor)! The cell was cleaner in Kentish Town, in Peckham they didn't take the staples out of my London Review of Books, they phoned the solicitors for me quite quickly in Peckham (they didn't at all in Kentish Town) but were very slow in letting me make my own phone call, so it was a long time before Joy knew where I was. They didn't have the computer problems in Peckham that they'd had in Kentish Town so I was locked-up much sooner and released quite a bit earlier, allowing me to get to Euston before the last train home. 

 

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.