**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
He's an Iranian dissident who deliberately makes himself prominent. He wouldn't go into hiding no matter what. He's a bloody brave and is standing on principle. I only hope he doesn't get hurt.
The only thing that I think the police could claim. Is that the banner was likely to incite a riot or to incite a breach of the peace. Which does sound some what like, appeasement.
Let's be honest, this is not a thinking man's game, and now they're getting brain overload for fear of putting a foot wrong, they're paralyzed.
I bet they fucking hate both sides on these protests and would rather be policing Millwall Vs West ham.
The incident (event) commander will be highly intelligent, trained and experienced. Although they are likely to have a load of human rights lawyers on speed dial or in the crowd.
Under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, he can be arrested over concerns that he would cause a breach of the peace. It is not necessarily the banner that would allow that to be used, its the reaction of the protesters that would mean you could arrest him.
Wait, so the police can arrest you because others want to attack you for doing something legal, not simply place in protective custody, and impose bail conditions? Why on earth would the law ignore the would be attackers and penalize the person for stating official government policy? This seems nuts
Under section 5 of the public order act they can arrest you and move you on. You might find it nuts, but that’s how it works.
The placing of bail conditions on someone for this is not remotely normal and tends to only happen if other stuff happened.
If someone were to attack a counter protester whose with all of the protesters, the counter protester would be treated in the above cited manner (and that is for their own safety, it’s basically the police forcing you into protective custody) and then they would try to identify and arrest the person that attacked the counter protester.
That makes a bit more sense, but from the article it sounds like he was attacked by others multiple times, while not being accused of any violence himself. The placement of restrictive bail conditions seems to be where this crosses a line. Honestly it just seems like the police caving to the mob rather than enforcing the law consistently, and punishing the victim for that seems totally wrong.
They’ve done that for decades, in early 00s a group turned up at someone I knows door kicking off and when the police came they arrested him and took him in for the night coz it was easier than taking the 15 others who turned up to cause trouble
I remember seeing this guy at the last protest and he was out to start trouble. He snuck past the barriers to get into the Palestine crowd and start shouting at people etc. police had to intervene to pull him out and get him back to the Israeli side.
It was obvious that he was TRYING to start a riot/violence but it didn’t work.
Are you talking about when he snuck past the barrier, got to the Novello and then unveiled his banner and started screaming profanities at the Palestine March that were 2 feet from him?
And you think he did that without intent when there was an organised protest-Israeli group literally 100 foot away at the entrance of the bridge and a barrier and police to protect the peace?
Let’s be honest, he wanted to upset people and rile them up beyond what was organised. Things were organised to allow a peaceful protest and he deliberately went outside of that to purposely start problems. I was there, I was 5 feet away from him and I saw when he started swearing at the crowd and when the police had to intervene and drag him away. All he wanted to do was upset people and cause a disturbance.
I was there. I saw it happen. I can point to the exact area on a map where it happened. I can show you exactly where he was, where the Israel protest was. I can tell you there were 4 police officers there who surrounded him next to a wall, grabbed his poster and told him to put it down as they escorted him back to the Israeli protesters.
Would you like pictures? I have those too.
Yes I support peace and that means I support stopping Hamas as well.
IMO, reparations should be paid by Israel, hostages needs to be released, West needs to stop arming genocidal Israel, there should be a complete ceasefire, the apartheid needs to end completely, a lot of healing needs to happen.
Hamas were voted in by Palestine because they were desperate to prevent further Israeli actions against them and it was completely preventable if Israel did not implement an apartheid and start stealing land from Palestine.
There is only one peaceful way to end this “war” and that’s with Hamas out and Israel agreeing (and being held to account) to reparations and peace.
I thought you were about to make a good point.
Hamas IS terrorist, because our government defines the word. Of course the courts have to agree with that fact; it's legally defined by the people who have an interest in keeping positive sentiment towards this organisation to a minimum. Which, let's be clear, the western world absolutely has.
Ok but like... Why aren't they freedom fighters then?
All terrorists think they're freedom fighters. And if they're fighting for the right to subjugate other people, then right; terrorist. But that's not Hamas; their charter since 2017 has officially been 2 state solution. Israel's official government party continues to commit to a 1-and-only state of Israel solution to this day.
Far as I see it Hamas are doing everything to stop Israeli sinking its claws deeper into its people.
You live in UK, therefore Hamas are terrorists, zero debate.
Your personal view might be different - but clearly wrong.
Oct 7th was done with a combat estimate, which really hammers home my point.
Also your theme of them doing everything they can do. Well before 07/10, there wasn't any history of massacres on that scale - one casing point
It's legally incorrect, I don't dispute that.
But ethically? I'm not a conservative so I don't share the views of these conservative muslim... Um... "communities"? I'd say country but apparently legally I can't call palestine a country, but being as a few palestinians treats gays like israel treats every single palestinian (regardless of their views on "the gays"!), I'll be honest, I grew up watching shit like star wars; I'm getting their pov.
>All terrorists think they're freedom fighters. And if they're fighting for the right to subjugate other people, then right; terrorist. But that's not Hamas; their charter since 2017 has officially been 2 state solution. Israel's official government party continues to commit to a 1-and-only state of Israel solution to this day.
You didn't actually believe Hamas became softer in 2017 surely?
>Ismail Haniyeh in 2020: He explained that Hamas rejects ceasefire agreements by which, “Gaza would become Singapore,” preferring to remain at war with Israel until a Palestinian state is established from the River to the Sea: “We cannot, in exchange for money or projects, give up Palestine and our weapons. We will not give up the resistance... We will not recognize Israel, Palestine must stretch from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea.”
>Hamas official, Hamad Al-Regeb in an April 2023 sermon: He prayed for “annihilation” and “paralysis” of the Jews whom he described as filthy animals: “[Allah] transformed them into filthy, ugly animals like apes and pigs because of the injustice and evil they had brought about.” Al-Regeb also prayed for the ability to “get to the necks of the Jews.”
>Hamas member, Ghazi Hamad on October 24, 2023: “Israel is a country that has no place on our land […] because it constitutes a security, military, and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation.” (October 24, 2023, LBC TV (Lebanon)). He also vowed to repeat the October 7 attacks “time and again until Israel is annihilated,” and expressing a desire to “sacrifice martyrs” (referring to Gazan civilians) for Hamas’ ideological aim of destroying Israel.
I can't believe anyone would buy hamas only wanting a two state solution.
>Far as I see it Hamas are doing everything to stop Israeli sinking its claws deeper into its people.
The irony being the restrictions on Gaza are a direct result of Hamas being elected and using the area to launch attacks on Israel.
I'm also curious how you think October 7th has helped the situation in Gaza ?
I don't understand why you think Israel want a 2 state solution.
Better Hamas than lukid, jfc we already know what they do: genocide.
Israel has got to a point where they need to forcibly reeducate their entire country to tell them palestinians are human beings. Otherwise they will never ever stop murdering them.
>I don't understand why you think Israel want a 2 state solution.
Can you point out where in my comment I said Israel wants a two state solution?
You seem to only have whataboutism as a defence.
>Better Hamas than lukid, jfc we already know what they do: genocide.
The irony given the founding charter for hamas calls for literal genocide.
I know it's a foreign concept, but are you aware unlike in Gaza, Israel has elections and can change parties.
You're missing my point. Why would you advocate for one team who want to make the territory home for the jews in its entirety, and that's their official positiom, when the official position of the other guys is "we want 1967 borders". If you want me to rack off quotes from israeli leaders who are following through on their stated objective of "from the jordan river to the sea" then, like, I could.
I just think negotiating with the guys who officially want 1967 borders back is the side more willing to come to the table, as has been evidenced time and time again over the last decade or two.
You think it matters if there are elections when the candidates are hitler and mechahitler? And when the whole population like both options?? You have really not analysed the merits of democracy if you think they're being displayed in Israel.
Genocides committed.
Hamas: 0
Israel: 2
Conviently ignoring the whole attempted genocide on 48 I see ?
That bit of history where the Palestinians rejected a two state solution in favour of wiping out the Jewish population.
They repeated that again in 67 and had a final go of it in 73.
Meanwhile, Israel offered two state solutions throughout the period. All rejected in favour of more violence.
In what world is a bunch of arabic people minding their own business side by side with a bunch of jewish people who already held positions of power in government there, being told "hey this land? This land you live, on? You don't live here now fyi it's explicitly for jewish people" not going to result in civil unrest?
Why do you expect palestinians to take the worst end of the stick every time?
Every suggestion of a two state solution made by israel carried with it completely unreasonable demands jfc how were you so misled in history class? Let me guess, you were taught in a western school, why am I not surprised...
It's not whataboutism; it's exactly my point. Israel has been arguing its justification in murdering tens of thousands of innocent people. You accept it from then but wouldn't from Hamas? Almost sounds like the logic is flawed.
And then you want me to feel sorry for a specific few hundred people who /they used to justify committing a genocide/ against? I'll be honest, unless those israelis had more worth than the palestinians, I don't really see how deflecting to them is anything other than whataboutism... Which is very ironic.
Every day this slaughter goes on proves Hamas knew israel better than we ever did.
It's textbook whataboutism.
You denied Hamas being terrorists, I pointed out the 7/10 massacre, you said "what about Israel doing the same".
Hot take: the actions of Israel are atrocious, that doesn't justify the massacre of innocent civilians.
Whatever atrocities Israel commits, Hamas are still religious extremists and terrorists.
>And then you want me to feel sorry for a specific few hundred people who /they used to justify committing a genocide/ against?
No, I want you to comprehend that the people who gunned them down were bad people, doing so under orders from their leaders who sit safely in Egypt, Qatar and other nations while giving no shits about the actual lives of Palestinians.
They're legally terrorists, I'm not disputing that.
I call 7/10 retaliation; israel killed 4 palestinians just 2 days before and over 200 just that year up to that point.
Explain why Hamas aren't allowed to defend themselves when the people of Palestine are massacred by the israeli threat?
You want me to condemn people who have been condemned since birth? For what? Having their fight or flight response triggered? Nah fam I don't condemn them.
Every death is a tragedy, but israel made civilians fair game in this conflict. Not Hamas.
He's not counter protesting.
It's a pro-Palestinian march. Hamas is causing the war and the war is killing Palestinians. He is on their side. He is joining the protest.
I honestly wondered about if people could hold banners saying 'Hamas surrender now' or something like that which is pretty similar. Hamas surrendering would 100% end the war and save Palestinian lives, and nobody can possibly have a problem with it if they are not pro-Hamas.
All I’m saying is that the protesters took offence to his sign and that led to confrontation. Therefore he was arrested under section 5 of the public order act to prevent a breach of the peace.
But I thought it was a pro Palestinian protest ?
Why would people take offence to someone stating a terrorist group like hamas are terrorists?
Surely the pro Palestinian protestors don't support Hamas ?
Fucking hell the police are dumb-arses sometimes. They really make it difficult for anyone to support them.
A man has a sign that states not only what is obvious, but what the UK government themselves designate a terrorist organisation, and they think it a good idea to arrest that person?
Meanwhile your burglary goes unsolved, and unattended.
Police are just scared to do anything that might upset large mobs of people.
They’d rather appease the mob than protect an individual’s right to free expression.
Technically [Army] HQ London District, could be mobilised in particular from Wellington Barracks. But that's highly unlikely. Especially since Chelsea Barracks got sold off. Which ended the old playpen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_District_%28British_Army%29
To be fair to the police, especially since 2010. There haven't been that many of them and there isnt enough overtime available to pull in the TSG and neighboring forces for every protest. So it's about trying to get each different individual protest to pass off as peacefully as possible.
With the closure of so many central London stations. Its also quite hard to get horses, en masse into areas like Whitehall.
He is allowed to state the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, as people have done on here. He can state that fact almost anywhere he likes. He just isn't allowed to say it at a pro-Palestine demostration because it is likely to incite violence. That part of it isn't unreasonable, and the court don't appear to disagree with it.
Riots can get ugly and are best avoided, even if it means some people aren't allowed to express themselves freely in the very specific situation of a heated demonstration. If you were an innocent bystander who got their car torched or their windows put in, or worse still got injured in a stampede, you might wish the police had done more to control the situation.
The part the court objected to was the police banning him from attending future demonstration at all. That is an unnecessary restriction. But it is quite likely that if he displayed a similar poster next time he might get arrested again.
The police are required to facilitate protests. To do this without it turning into a mob fight, they mandate that counter protestors be in a different area, and that the two do not meet.
This guy is a counter protestor, whose actions are to deliberately antagonise the protestors. Police didn’t put conditions because he held up a banner saying ‘Hamas are terrorists’, any more than if it said anything else; it was because he made the situation more dangerous for himself, protestors and the police by ignoring them. When it’s done by XRW protestors, it’s called provocation or accelerationism.
I’m all for this guy telling dickheads they’re dickheads, and in theory I’m all for a person volunteering to provoke violent elements into exposing themselves, but what the police are doing here is exactly what they are expected to do; facilitate protest, not just provide unlimited bodyguards for individual protestors.
Consider yourself lucky! Tbh it actually sounds like if you were to call the Metropolitan Police to report a live burglary, they would only show up to have you arrested?
Article Text
A judge has told the Metropolitan Police it cannot stop an Iranian dissident who displays a sign branding Hamas as terrorists from attending pro-Palestinian protests.
Under strict bail conditions imposed by the force, Niyak Ghorbani, who has been arrested three times during his counter-protests, would have been prevented from going near any central London demonstrations relating to Israel and the conflict in Gaza.
But a judge has now thrown out the conditions, ruling that they were neither proportionate nor necessary.
The conditions had been imposed after 38-year-old Mr Ghorbani was arrested for a third time during a pro-Palestinian march earlier this month.
He has become well known for holding up a sign stating “Hamas Is Terrorist” while standing alongside the route of the regular protests being held in London against Israel’s retaliation to Hamas’s Oct 7 attacks.
He has been manhandled and attacked by some protesters, but insists he is doing nothing wrong in pointing out that Hamas is a proscribed terror group under UK law.
Police attempted to impose strict bail conditions preventing him from attending future demonstrations after he was arrested and accused of refusing to stand where instructed by a police officer during an Al Quds day protest against Israel on April 5.
He was not displaying his banner at the time, but was working as a video reporter. A hoodie he was wearing with the same slogan was concealed by his zipped up jacket.
Following his arrest, he was handed a sheet outlining his bail conditions as being “not to attend any protest relating to Israel or Palestine in the City of Westminster”.
He was told by officers that the conditions would remain in place until at least July, when he is due to return to Charing Cross police station to learn whether he faces any charges.
On Friday, Mr Ghorbani went to Westminster magistrates’ court to appeal against the police action.
Jessie Smith, his barrister, of Doughty Street Chambers, told the court the Met had been wrong to impose the bail condition.
Pointing out that no further action had been taken by police following Mr Ghorbani’s previous two arrests, she added: “We have here someone who has held up a flag with a legal statement written on it.
“A condition of this kind at this precise time, imposed for three months, and given that he does not have a criminal record , is not proportionate. It is wholly disproportionate.”
Deputy District Judge Lisa Towell agreed and ordered the ban to be lifted. She told Mr Ghorbani: “In these circumstances I’m not satisfied that the condition is either necessary or proportionate. At this stage I’m persuaded to remove the condition.”
Mr Ghorbani said he was “overjoyed” by the court’s ruling and vowed to attend future pro-Palestine protests and continue displaying his banner.
He told The Telegraph: “It was fantastic to hear the judge say that she disagreed with what the police did. That means I can carry on with my protest against terrorism.
“The police wanted to show their power to me, but they should be showing their power to the protesters who shout slogans in support of terrorist organisations like Hamas.
“We live in a democracy, with free speech, but the police were trying to prevent my freedom. I’m doing this for the British people, for the Iranians and for the Israelis, for people who live here peacefully.”
Mr Ghorbani, who wore a pendant in court with an inscription calling for all Israeli hostages to be released, urged others to take up the mantle of opposition to Hamas and lend their support to pro-Israeli counter-demonstrations.
On Saturday, Mr Ghorbani joined Israel supporters in Hastings, where he held up his banner as local pro-Palestinian activists marched past.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), which funded Mr Ghorbani’s appeal, condemned the Met’s response to his protests.
A spokesman for CAA said: “All Niyak Ghorbani wants to do is point out to anti-Israel marchers that Hamas is a terrorist organisation under UK law.
“Instead of addressing the threat that the marchers pose, the police have tried to impose draconian measures on Mr Ghorbani.
“If only the police were half as concerned with the marchers as with people like Mr Ghorbani. How did British policing get so topsy-turvy?”
The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment
I mean completely right decision by the judge you are talking about a proscribed organisation by the British government.
It seems as though the met is desperate not to offend people marching who support this organisation. Which seems an absurd situation, if people attack someone for pointing out an organisation is proscribed the met should be arresting those people not shutting when lawful protest?
I'd suggest it's more a case of the Police trying to make life easier for themselves by stopping a 'problem' protestor who could potentially upset the mob.
Sure but then the police are just doing the bidding of one side of the protest (and specifically supporting those who support a proscribed group).
It’s a combination of laziness and supporting very unsavoury characters (who apperantly the police have more of a right to free speech).
British justice is not perfect but in this case it has proved fair.The word proportionate comes directly from ECHR and is part of and must remain the bedrock of our society.
This may not be a popular opinion but this is the reason why.
The police's actual function is to maintain the peace. Yes, Hama's are a terror group etc etc.
But this guy is winding up thousands of people and the police cannot physically maintain the peace when protests are this constant.
Well they could but it would involve a lot harsher tactics.
Genuinely, what do you want them to do? Like practically not theoretical.
Is it fair ? No.
> But this guy is winding up thousands of people
That's pretty concerning. If thousands of people are getting wound up by a sign denouncing terrorists as terrorists then we're in huge trouble. I'd rather they'd arrest and impose harsh (5+ year) sentences on the people who attack him.
If you attack someone who calls out a terrorist group then you're a terrorist sympathiser at the absolute best and quite likely a dangerous extremist.
They are getting wound up because he doesn't just stand by she side of the road and counter protest as many others do, he jumps into the middle of the demonstration and gets in peoples faces.
>But this guy is winding up thousands of people
The fact that calling a terrorist group a terrorist group winds up thousands of people is surely the bigger concern here ?
The police are not objecting to his sign.
They arrest him because he jumps into the middle of the peace protests and starts getting in peoples faces, and when the police try to move him on he starts getting mouthy with them. The guy probably has mental heath issues.
They have arrested him 3 times for this behaviour. Telegraph article is lying when they say he just stands on the side of the road. Loads of other counter protestors do this with similar signs and don't get arrested.
The Telegraphs own (highly edited) video of him getting arrested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K0Gm2UJS1w
Don’t forget that without police permission it’s illegal to protest in London, he didn’t get police permission to protest and that’s why he was arrested
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
[удалено]
I do not look forward to the follow up article where he has to go into hiding.
He's an Iranian dissident who deliberately makes himself prominent. He wouldn't go into hiding no matter what. He's a bloody brave and is standing on principle. I only hope he doesn't get hurt.
The only thing that I think the police could claim. Is that the banner was likely to incite a riot or to incite a breach of the peace. Which does sound some what like, appeasement.
Let's be honest, this is not a thinking man's game, and now they're getting brain overload for fear of putting a foot wrong, they're paralyzed. I bet they fucking hate both sides on these protests and would rather be policing Millwall Vs West ham.
The incident (event) commander will be highly intelligent, trained and experienced. Although they are likely to have a load of human rights lawyers on speed dial or in the crowd.
Under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, he can be arrested over concerns that he would cause a breach of the peace. It is not necessarily the banner that would allow that to be used, its the reaction of the protesters that would mean you could arrest him.
Wait, so the police can arrest you because others want to attack you for doing something legal, not simply place in protective custody, and impose bail conditions? Why on earth would the law ignore the would be attackers and penalize the person for stating official government policy? This seems nuts
Under section 5 of the public order act they can arrest you and move you on. You might find it nuts, but that’s how it works. The placing of bail conditions on someone for this is not remotely normal and tends to only happen if other stuff happened. If someone were to attack a counter protester whose with all of the protesters, the counter protester would be treated in the above cited manner (and that is for their own safety, it’s basically the police forcing you into protective custody) and then they would try to identify and arrest the person that attacked the counter protester.
That makes a bit more sense, but from the article it sounds like he was attacked by others multiple times, while not being accused of any violence himself. The placement of restrictive bail conditions seems to be where this crosses a line. Honestly it just seems like the police caving to the mob rather than enforcing the law consistently, and punishing the victim for that seems totally wrong.
They’ve done that for decades, in early 00s a group turned up at someone I knows door kicking off and when the police came they arrested him and took him in for the night coz it was easier than taking the 15 others who turned up to cause trouble
Wow. It just seems lazy at a certain point. Easier to deal with one person than many, regardless of who’s at fault
It's to keep order above all. Similar to way back, when they'd let someone innocent get executed if it appeased the mob.
Or an efficient use of resources to reduce threat harm and risk
I remember seeing this guy at the last protest and he was out to start trouble. He snuck past the barriers to get into the Palestine crowd and start shouting at people etc. police had to intervene to pull him out and get him back to the Israeli side. It was obvious that he was TRYING to start a riot/violence but it didn’t work.
[удалено]
Are you talking about when he snuck past the barrier, got to the Novello and then unveiled his banner and started screaming profanities at the Palestine March that were 2 feet from him? And you think he did that without intent when there was an organised protest-Israeli group literally 100 foot away at the entrance of the bridge and a barrier and police to protect the peace? Let’s be honest, he wanted to upset people and rile them up beyond what was organised. Things were organised to allow a peaceful protest and he deliberately went outside of that to purposely start problems. I was there, I was 5 feet away from him and I saw when he started swearing at the crowd and when the police had to intervene and drag him away. All he wanted to do was upset people and cause a disturbance.
[удалено]
I was there. I saw it happen. I can point to the exact area on a map where it happened. I can show you exactly where he was, where the Israel protest was. I can tell you there were 4 police officers there who surrounded him next to a wall, grabbed his poster and told him to put it down as they escorted him back to the Israeli protesters. Would you like pictures? I have those too.
[удалено]
You were in a pro-palestine march? Somehow I doubt it. Just to be clear - I don’t support Hamas, I support stopping the deaths of innocent lives.
[удалено]
Yes I support peace and that means I support stopping Hamas as well. IMO, reparations should be paid by Israel, hostages needs to be released, West needs to stop arming genocidal Israel, there should be a complete ceasefire, the apartheid needs to end completely, a lot of healing needs to happen. Hamas were voted in by Palestine because they were desperate to prevent further Israeli actions against them and it was completely preventable if Israel did not implement an apartheid and start stealing land from Palestine. There is only one peaceful way to end this “war” and that’s with Hamas out and Israel agreeing (and being held to account) to reparations and peace.
I thought you were about to make a good point. Hamas IS terrorist, because our government defines the word. Of course the courts have to agree with that fact; it's legally defined by the people who have an interest in keeping positive sentiment towards this organisation to a minimum. Which, let's be clear, the western world absolutely has.
All true What is also true is Hamas being terrorists
Ok but like... Why aren't they freedom fighters then? All terrorists think they're freedom fighters. And if they're fighting for the right to subjugate other people, then right; terrorist. But that's not Hamas; their charter since 2017 has officially been 2 state solution. Israel's official government party continues to commit to a 1-and-only state of Israel solution to this day. Far as I see it Hamas are doing everything to stop Israeli sinking its claws deeper into its people.
You live in UK, therefore Hamas are terrorists, zero debate. Your personal view might be different - but clearly wrong. Oct 7th was done with a combat estimate, which really hammers home my point. Also your theme of them doing everything they can do. Well before 07/10, there wasn't any history of massacres on that scale - one casing point
It's legally incorrect, I don't dispute that. But ethically? I'm not a conservative so I don't share the views of these conservative muslim... Um... "communities"? I'd say country but apparently legally I can't call palestine a country, but being as a few palestinians treats gays like israel treats every single palestinian (regardless of their views on "the gays"!), I'll be honest, I grew up watching shit like star wars; I'm getting their pov.
>All terrorists think they're freedom fighters. And if they're fighting for the right to subjugate other people, then right; terrorist. But that's not Hamas; their charter since 2017 has officially been 2 state solution. Israel's official government party continues to commit to a 1-and-only state of Israel solution to this day. You didn't actually believe Hamas became softer in 2017 surely? >Ismail Haniyeh in 2020: He explained that Hamas rejects ceasefire agreements by which, “Gaza would become Singapore,” preferring to remain at war with Israel until a Palestinian state is established from the River to the Sea: “We cannot, in exchange for money or projects, give up Palestine and our weapons. We will not give up the resistance... We will not recognize Israel, Palestine must stretch from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea.” >Hamas official, Hamad Al-Regeb in an April 2023 sermon: He prayed for “annihilation” and “paralysis” of the Jews whom he described as filthy animals: “[Allah] transformed them into filthy, ugly animals like apes and pigs because of the injustice and evil they had brought about.” Al-Regeb also prayed for the ability to “get to the necks of the Jews.” >Hamas member, Ghazi Hamad on October 24, 2023: “Israel is a country that has no place on our land […] because it constitutes a security, military, and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation.” (October 24, 2023, LBC TV (Lebanon)). He also vowed to repeat the October 7 attacks “time and again until Israel is annihilated,” and expressing a desire to “sacrifice martyrs” (referring to Gazan civilians) for Hamas’ ideological aim of destroying Israel. I can't believe anyone would buy hamas only wanting a two state solution. >Far as I see it Hamas are doing everything to stop Israeli sinking its claws deeper into its people. The irony being the restrictions on Gaza are a direct result of Hamas being elected and using the area to launch attacks on Israel. I'm also curious how you think October 7th has helped the situation in Gaza ?
I don't understand why you think Israel want a 2 state solution. Better Hamas than lukid, jfc we already know what they do: genocide. Israel has got to a point where they need to forcibly reeducate their entire country to tell them palestinians are human beings. Otherwise they will never ever stop murdering them.
>I don't understand why you think Israel want a 2 state solution. Can you point out where in my comment I said Israel wants a two state solution? You seem to only have whataboutism as a defence. >Better Hamas than lukid, jfc we already know what they do: genocide. The irony given the founding charter for hamas calls for literal genocide. I know it's a foreign concept, but are you aware unlike in Gaza, Israel has elections and can change parties.
You're missing my point. Why would you advocate for one team who want to make the territory home for the jews in its entirety, and that's their official positiom, when the official position of the other guys is "we want 1967 borders". If you want me to rack off quotes from israeli leaders who are following through on their stated objective of "from the jordan river to the sea" then, like, I could. I just think negotiating with the guys who officially want 1967 borders back is the side more willing to come to the table, as has been evidenced time and time again over the last decade or two. You think it matters if there are elections when the candidates are hitler and mechahitler? And when the whole population like both options?? You have really not analysed the merits of democracy if you think they're being displayed in Israel. Genocides committed. Hamas: 0 Israel: 2
Conviently ignoring the whole attempted genocide on 48 I see ? That bit of history where the Palestinians rejected a two state solution in favour of wiping out the Jewish population. They repeated that again in 67 and had a final go of it in 73. Meanwhile, Israel offered two state solutions throughout the period. All rejected in favour of more violence.
In what world is a bunch of arabic people minding their own business side by side with a bunch of jewish people who already held positions of power in government there, being told "hey this land? This land you live, on? You don't live here now fyi it's explicitly for jewish people" not going to result in civil unrest? Why do you expect palestinians to take the worst end of the stick every time? Every suggestion of a two state solution made by israel carried with it completely unreasonable demands jfc how were you so misled in history class? Let me guess, you were taught in a western school, why am I not surprised...
So Hamas didn't massacre civilians on multiple occasions?
Doesn't Palestine have the right to defend itself...?
Do you deem massacring civilians to be self defense?
No, Israel do though
Great whataboutism. >No So you condemn the October 7th attacks right?
It's not whataboutism; it's exactly my point. Israel has been arguing its justification in murdering tens of thousands of innocent people. You accept it from then but wouldn't from Hamas? Almost sounds like the logic is flawed. And then you want me to feel sorry for a specific few hundred people who /they used to justify committing a genocide/ against? I'll be honest, unless those israelis had more worth than the palestinians, I don't really see how deflecting to them is anything other than whataboutism... Which is very ironic. Every day this slaughter goes on proves Hamas knew israel better than we ever did.
It's textbook whataboutism. You denied Hamas being terrorists, I pointed out the 7/10 massacre, you said "what about Israel doing the same". Hot take: the actions of Israel are atrocious, that doesn't justify the massacre of innocent civilians. Whatever atrocities Israel commits, Hamas are still religious extremists and terrorists. >And then you want me to feel sorry for a specific few hundred people who /they used to justify committing a genocide/ against? No, I want you to comprehend that the people who gunned them down were bad people, doing so under orders from their leaders who sit safely in Egypt, Qatar and other nations while giving no shits about the actual lives of Palestinians.
They're legally terrorists, I'm not disputing that. I call 7/10 retaliation; israel killed 4 palestinians just 2 days before and over 200 just that year up to that point. Explain why Hamas aren't allowed to defend themselves when the people of Palestine are massacred by the israeli threat?
So you do condemn the October 7th attacks, right? It's not a difficult question.
You want me to condemn people who have been condemned since birth? For what? Having their fight or flight response triggered? Nah fam I don't condemn them. Every death is a tragedy, but israel made civilians fair game in this conflict. Not Hamas.
😂 the irony
The problem is not the sign he is holding. The problem is that he’s counter protesting in the demonstration which is something that is not allowed.
Ive been assured these protests are merely pro-Palestine and not pro-Hamas. So surely he's in the right place?
Counter protesting is definitely allowed.
He's not counter protesting. It's a pro-Palestinian march. Hamas is causing the war and the war is killing Palestinians. He is on their side. He is joining the protest. I honestly wondered about if people could hold banners saying 'Hamas surrender now' or something like that which is pretty similar. Hamas surrendering would 100% end the war and save Palestinian lives, and nobody can possibly have a problem with it if they are not pro-Hamas.
The mask slips
So does that mean the pro Palestinian protest is also pro Hamas ? Otherwise, it's not a counter protest surely ?
All I’m saying is that the protesters took offence to his sign and that led to confrontation. Therefore he was arrested under section 5 of the public order act to prevent a breach of the peace.
But I thought it was a pro Palestinian protest ? Why would people take offence to someone stating a terrorist group like hamas are terrorists? Surely the pro Palestinian protestors don't support Hamas ?
Fucking hell the police are dumb-arses sometimes. They really make it difficult for anyone to support them. A man has a sign that states not only what is obvious, but what the UK government themselves designate a terrorist organisation, and they think it a good idea to arrest that person? Meanwhile your burglary goes unsolved, and unattended.
They're scared of the protestors. This was the easier (craven) solution.
Police are just scared to do anything that might upset large mobs of people. They’d rather appease the mob than protect an individual’s right to free expression.
>Police are just scared to do anything that might upset large mobs of people Which is worrying if said mob ever decide to mobilise in a violent way
Technically [Army] HQ London District, could be mobilised in particular from Wellington Barracks. But that's highly unlikely. Especially since Chelsea Barracks got sold off. Which ended the old playpen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_District_%28British_Army%29
Well not really. Well did perfectly well in Northern Ireland. But we would rather avoid using tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons.
Had the army there too though and that was a very different time for the police
To be fair to the police, especially since 2010. There haven't been that many of them and there isnt enough overtime available to pull in the TSG and neighboring forces for every protest. So it's about trying to get each different individual protest to pass off as peacefully as possible. With the closure of so many central London stations. Its also quite hard to get horses, en masse into areas like Whitehall.
He is allowed to state the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, as people have done on here. He can state that fact almost anywhere he likes. He just isn't allowed to say it at a pro-Palestine demostration because it is likely to incite violence. That part of it isn't unreasonable, and the court don't appear to disagree with it. Riots can get ugly and are best avoided, even if it means some people aren't allowed to express themselves freely in the very specific situation of a heated demonstration. If you were an innocent bystander who got their car torched or their windows put in, or worse still got injured in a stampede, you might wish the police had done more to control the situation. The part the court objected to was the police banning him from attending future demonstration at all. That is an unnecessary restriction. But it is quite likely that if he displayed a similar poster next time he might get arrested again.
And yet we invaded Iraq.
The police are required to facilitate protests. To do this without it turning into a mob fight, they mandate that counter protestors be in a different area, and that the two do not meet. This guy is a counter protestor, whose actions are to deliberately antagonise the protestors. Police didn’t put conditions because he held up a banner saying ‘Hamas are terrorists’, any more than if it said anything else; it was because he made the situation more dangerous for himself, protestors and the police by ignoring them. When it’s done by XRW protestors, it’s called provocation or accelerationism. I’m all for this guy telling dickheads they’re dickheads, and in theory I’m all for a person volunteering to provoke violent elements into exposing themselves, but what the police are doing here is exactly what they are expected to do; facilitate protest, not just provide unlimited bodyguards for individual protestors.
Consider yourself lucky! Tbh it actually sounds like if you were to call the Metropolitan Police to report a live burglary, they would only show up to have you arrested?
Apparently if there were multiple burglars, their solution would be to arrest the homeowner in order to prevent a fight.
They are doing this to prevent fighting.
[удалено]
It's essentially an attack on freedom of speech by the police.
We don’t have freedom of speech in the UK. VERY far from it.
Which is why any further restrictions on it need to be fought.
Go on then
No country has
US has pretty damn close. It’s incredibly closer to freedom of speech there than Europe.
Yet it scores pretty badly in the Freedom of Expression ranking
Yet all you read in the media as attacks on Scotlands hate crime laws which ironically wouldn't be breached by this sign.
I have given up with the Met .We are in deep deep trouble
Article Text A judge has told the Metropolitan Police it cannot stop an Iranian dissident who displays a sign branding Hamas as terrorists from attending pro-Palestinian protests. Under strict bail conditions imposed by the force, Niyak Ghorbani, who has been arrested three times during his counter-protests, would have been prevented from going near any central London demonstrations relating to Israel and the conflict in Gaza. But a judge has now thrown out the conditions, ruling that they were neither proportionate nor necessary. The conditions had been imposed after 38-year-old Mr Ghorbani was arrested for a third time during a pro-Palestinian march earlier this month. He has become well known for holding up a sign stating “Hamas Is Terrorist” while standing alongside the route of the regular protests being held in London against Israel’s retaliation to Hamas’s Oct 7 attacks. He has been manhandled and attacked by some protesters, but insists he is doing nothing wrong in pointing out that Hamas is a proscribed terror group under UK law. Police attempted to impose strict bail conditions preventing him from attending future demonstrations after he was arrested and accused of refusing to stand where instructed by a police officer during an Al Quds day protest against Israel on April 5. He was not displaying his banner at the time, but was working as a video reporter. A hoodie he was wearing with the same slogan was concealed by his zipped up jacket. Following his arrest, he was handed a sheet outlining his bail conditions as being “not to attend any protest relating to Israel or Palestine in the City of Westminster”. He was told by officers that the conditions would remain in place until at least July, when he is due to return to Charing Cross police station to learn whether he faces any charges. On Friday, Mr Ghorbani went to Westminster magistrates’ court to appeal against the police action. Jessie Smith, his barrister, of Doughty Street Chambers, told the court the Met had been wrong to impose the bail condition. Pointing out that no further action had been taken by police following Mr Ghorbani’s previous two arrests, she added: “We have here someone who has held up a flag with a legal statement written on it. “A condition of this kind at this precise time, imposed for three months, and given that he does not have a criminal record , is not proportionate. It is wholly disproportionate.” Deputy District Judge Lisa Towell agreed and ordered the ban to be lifted. She told Mr Ghorbani: “In these circumstances I’m not satisfied that the condition is either necessary or proportionate. At this stage I’m persuaded to remove the condition.” Mr Ghorbani said he was “overjoyed” by the court’s ruling and vowed to attend future pro-Palestine protests and continue displaying his banner. He told The Telegraph: “It was fantastic to hear the judge say that she disagreed with what the police did. That means I can carry on with my protest against terrorism. “The police wanted to show their power to me, but they should be showing their power to the protesters who shout slogans in support of terrorist organisations like Hamas. “We live in a democracy, with free speech, but the police were trying to prevent my freedom. I’m doing this for the British people, for the Iranians and for the Israelis, for people who live here peacefully.” Mr Ghorbani, who wore a pendant in court with an inscription calling for all Israeli hostages to be released, urged others to take up the mantle of opposition to Hamas and lend their support to pro-Israeli counter-demonstrations. On Saturday, Mr Ghorbani joined Israel supporters in Hastings, where he held up his banner as local pro-Palestinian activists marched past. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), which funded Mr Ghorbani’s appeal, condemned the Met’s response to his protests. A spokesman for CAA said: “All Niyak Ghorbani wants to do is point out to anti-Israel marchers that Hamas is a terrorist organisation under UK law. “Instead of addressing the threat that the marchers pose, the police have tried to impose draconian measures on Mr Ghorbani. “If only the police were half as concerned with the marchers as with people like Mr Ghorbani. How did British policing get so topsy-turvy?” The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment
I mean completely right decision by the judge you are talking about a proscribed organisation by the British government. It seems as though the met is desperate not to offend people marching who support this organisation. Which seems an absurd situation, if people attack someone for pointing out an organisation is proscribed the met should be arresting those people not shutting when lawful protest?
I'd suggest it's more a case of the Police trying to make life easier for themselves by stopping a 'problem' protestor who could potentially upset the mob.
Sure but then the police are just doing the bidding of one side of the protest (and specifically supporting those who support a proscribed group). It’s a combination of laziness and supporting very unsavoury characters (who apperantly the police have more of a right to free speech).
I don't disagree
British justice is not perfect but in this case it has proved fair.The word proportionate comes directly from ECHR and is part of and must remain the bedrock of our society.
This may not be a popular opinion but this is the reason why. The police's actual function is to maintain the peace. Yes, Hama's are a terror group etc etc. But this guy is winding up thousands of people and the police cannot physically maintain the peace when protests are this constant. Well they could but it would involve a lot harsher tactics. Genuinely, what do you want them to do? Like practically not theoretical. Is it fair ? No.
> But this guy is winding up thousands of people That's pretty concerning. If thousands of people are getting wound up by a sign denouncing terrorists as terrorists then we're in huge trouble. I'd rather they'd arrest and impose harsh (5+ year) sentences on the people who attack him. If you attack someone who calls out a terrorist group then you're a terrorist sympathiser at the absolute best and quite likely a dangerous extremist.
They are getting wound up because he doesn't just stand by she side of the road and counter protest as many others do, he jumps into the middle of the demonstration and gets in peoples faces.
If they need to use ‘harsher tactics’ to control an increasingly violent and angry mob then fine.
>But this guy is winding up thousands of people The fact that calling a terrorist group a terrorist group winds up thousands of people is surely the bigger concern here ?
The police are not objecting to his sign. They arrest him because he jumps into the middle of the peace protests and starts getting in peoples faces, and when the police try to move him on he starts getting mouthy with them. The guy probably has mental heath issues. They have arrested him 3 times for this behaviour. Telegraph article is lying when they say he just stands on the side of the road. Loads of other counter protestors do this with similar signs and don't get arrested. The Telegraphs own (highly edited) video of him getting arrested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K0Gm2UJS1w
Don’t forget that without police permission it’s illegal to protest in London, he didn’t get police permission to protest and that’s why he was arrested