British Judiciary Rewriting The History of Political Violence

A Rapid Descent Into An Orwellian Dystopia

Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr (Wikimedia Commons)

Today was the day when the Court of Appeal overturned a February High Court decision, finding Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s July 2025 ban on Palestine Action lawful under the Terrorism Act 2000. I think most of us knew it would be overturned because of the verdict and sentences handed down to the Filton 4 on Friday evening by Justice (sic) Jeremy Johnson. They had their convictions on criminal damage, and one conviction for GBH was increased by Johnson applying the aggravated terrorism law. They had not been charged with any terrorism offences. How will you ask, can they then be sentenced for terrorism? They were not charged, so they could not defend themselves, and it was kept secret until the end of the trial. This is now a British injustice. And today is another day of infamy for British ‘justice’.

Today, we had another injustice as Baroness Carr (see above) handed down the decision of the court, which has caused an uproar for her lack of historical awareness regarding the Suffragette movement. It could also be seen as a cynical attempt to rewrite a new political history of Britain involving the actions of the Suffragettes.

In the decision of the court, the Lady Chief Justice stated that

“Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism…

(Palestine Action) was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, operating transparently in the open, but a covert operation operating with secret cells…to destroy the property of third parties.”

The Lady Chief Justice would likely not have been — but for the Suffragette movement and its tactical violence — in such a position as she is today. That is the first point to make. Easy point, but still an important one.

Secondly, the Suffragette movement used violence as a means to an end to gain the vote and push female equality to the forefront of British politics and social life. It worked.

Emmeline Pankhurst arrested in London, 1908 (Wikimedia Commons)

Yet Baroness Carr states that the difference between the Suffragette Movement and Palestine Action is that PA is a violent secret organisation, and the Suffragettes were,

“…a direct action civil disobedience protest group..”

That is the complete opposite of the truth. The suffragettes planted bombs, burned down private homes, and smashed up art galleries, and five people were killed. Baroness Carr would be well aware of this.

So the historical comparison is untrue and starkly Orwellian in its creation of a brand new political history of the fight for equality in Britain. The new history is that women’s rights and equality were not won by the violent protests of the suffragettes. They were.

To change history to create a completely erroneous iteration of the Suffragette movement as the archetype of peaceful protest and use this comparison to criminalise the actions of Palestine Action as being ‘terrorism’ is an Orwellian act. This historical revisionism allows the Justice system to implement extra-judicial (political) sentencing with the pure Orwellian ‘aggravated terrorism law’.

There is no longer a peaceful protest or civil disobedience automatically defined as non-violent because the non-violence will be redefined by the Judiciary and State as violence and as terrorism, depending on your political affiliations and ideology. If you are protesting in support of Palestine and the Genocide in Gaza, then you are automatically — once you protest — a TERRORIST. Because in a courtroom, you will not know that if found guilty of whatever you are charged with, you will then be sentenced as a TERRORIST.

The comparison between Palestine Action and the Suffragette movement is very apposite, as the suffragettes were violent, but Palestine Action was and is not. Yet the three judges at the Court of Appeal flipped the modus operandi of each movement to justify the future criminalisation of thousands and thousands in England when protesting.

The use of the term “secret cells” by Broness Carr is particularly disturbing and, of course, used provocatively to denounce one's own decent citizens of impeccable character as part of a terror organisation. Shameful smears and accusations.

This is the language of Tsarist Russia, the War on Terror, and the hysteria of bogus Iranian cells attacking Jewish property and people in England. The British Establishment is rewriting not just our history but our present to cover for the colonisation of Palestine and the Genocide taking place in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon. They are complicit in these acts. The real secret cells are the Zionists within our country, determining the criminalisation of our citizens as terrorists. These are the real terrorists, not the young and old law-abiding decent protestors of Palestine Action.

But it strikes me as more than just the rewriting of our proud history of civil disobedience with and without violence in England, but an attempt by the State and the Judiciary to erase the history of the ongoing Genocide in Gaza and what remains of the Occupied Territories known as historic Palestine. The Establishment is circling the wagons and doubling down on their illegal suppression of public protest by redefining it as ‘terrorism’.

They are deeply rattled by the incredible support for Palestine Action. But vilifying and criminalising those protesting against slaughtering thousands and thousands will solve nothing but only increase the support, as more people realise this is about preventing any accountability for Gaza and historic Palestine by those with so much blood on their hands.