“Breaking and destroying property is not civil disobedience,” argued the floor’s most-respected Yes case, casting the RAF action as terrorism rather than protest. Other Yes voters put the emphasis on defence infrastructure, the authority of the state and alleged links to Hamas; the winning side’s argument was that free speech ends where attacks on military assets begin.
The No case was narrower but more legally anxious. Its strongest voice said the government had “painted itself into a corner”, since criminal damage and breaking and entering were already available charges, while another warned that anti-terror powers could “criminalise thousands of peaceful citizens”. The two sides were often answering different questions: Yes asked whether the conduct met the terrorism threshold; No asked whether that label was necessary.
The sharpest No formulation drew a boundary around the word itself: “Terrorist law is for bombers, & murderers”, not direct-action protesters, one voter argued. A Yes reply answered that “Criminal damage driven by ideology is called terrorism”, reducing the dispute to whether political motive changes the character of the offence.
The room also contained a harsher, less disciplined strand, with arguments that “Everywhere ‘Palestinians’ gather in number they cause trouble”; its presence widened the question from one organisation’s conduct into a general judgement about a people. That sat uneasily beside the more focused Yes case, which argued about the state’s response to an attack, and the No case, which argued about precedent and proportionality.
This was a self-selected online chamber, not a national poll, but its verdict was clear: on this page, the security argument carried more weight than the fear of extending terrorism law into protest.
24 Opinions
They ARE a terrorist group. They attacked a military base and several defence manufacturers, damaging assets critical to national security. They went in armed, and broke a police officers spine with a sledgehammer. They could have been justifiably shot for these actions. Their clear intent was to create fear in anyone working with a company supplying Israel, in the hopes of forcing companies to cut them off. That is violence for political gain.
Hamas are a terrorist organisation therefore all groupings associated with or working with them should be proscribed.
Really is telling that only left and hard-left say no to this.
There is a line and that was crossed. There are many alternative groups that people can lend their voice in support of this cause. Protests should be peaceful and some civil disobedience can be tolerated via more limited measures under the law. However, the response in this case is proportionate for an attack on national defence infrastructure and equipment.
Palestinians seem to cause trouble around the world. Even Arab countries kick them out. We should take heed
Everywhere ‘Palestinians’ gather in number they cause trouble. They have tried to take control & spread sedition in many ME States and have been forcibly removed. Same should happen here. They are not victims. & if they were they have brought all of this on themselves. Whilst there is a tie up with the feral hard left noting will be done, but they are a destabilising grasping influence and the UK does not need people like this.
Unfortunately the protest action put them in the same ball park as terrorists, "someone who uses a violent act for political gain". If they now fully understand that, and return to the non violent protests, take the terrorism label away.
Absolutely not. Misusing anti-terror powers against direct-action protest sets a dangerous precedent. Conflating civil disobedience with terrorism criminalises thousands of peaceful citizens and stretches counter-terror laws far beyond their intended purpose of preventing severe violence against people... Criminal damage and trespassing on MOD property are already serious offences under normal criminal law... Why brand these people as terrorists?
ISIS, IRA, Hamas are terrorists - PA is a bunch of misguided middle class do-gooders who carried out criminal actions but not in my view terrorism- ie deliberately setting out to aim violence at civilians. Terrorist law is for bombers, & murderers not to stifle free speech or make the law scarier & more punitive for protesters. The recent actions showed the 'terrorists' were more frightened by Elbit security than the other way round.
Protesting against genocide is not and never will be terrorism. This is massive state overreach.