Activist jailed for over two years for protesting over arms companies supporting Israel’s apartheid
JVL Introduction
The British state is upping the ante as far as direct action protest is concerned (see The Coronation has hastened the Police State).
Interventions against those protesting about Elbit Systems are increasing with punitive sentences in the offing – 27 months in prison in the case of human rights activist Mike Lynch-White.
This is reported by the Canary below, explaining the background and the work of the group Scientist Rebellion, an important new international initiative, in this action.
Lynch-White’s crime: occupying APPH, a components supplier for Elbit, in order to disrupt weapon supply to Israel.
And in Shenstone 5 Elbit trial 4 of the 5 defendants have been found guilty and await sentence…
This article was originally published by the Canary on Wed 17 May 2023. Read the original here.
Activist jailed for over two years for protesting over arms companies supporting Israel’s apartheid
Loading article text…
I don’t know how widely or not this has been reported in the MSM and elsewhere, but I just did a search re >scientist rebellion activist jailed< and the only outlets that came up in the results were The Canary and JVL. (and a sequence of seven tweets on SRs twitter page).
The following article – from four days ago on Common Dreams – came up in the results and begins thus:
More than 1,000 scientists and academics in over 21 countries engaged in nonviolent protest last week under the banner of Scientist Rebellion to demand a just and equitable end to the fossil fuel era.
At least 19 of the participating scientists were arrested in actions linked to the group's "The Science Is Clear" campaign from May 7-13, organizers said at a Monday press conference.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/scientists-take-direct-action-against-climate-crisis
Also came across this Washington Post article from May of last year which is very interesting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/05/20/climate-change-scientists-protests/
Astonishing cruel treatment of activists.people who want to stop the killing of Palestinians. Law on the scale fe of murderers.
The sentence on Mike Lynch-White is indeed savage and follows similar sentences for 2 Climate protestors who halted traffic on a major road artery.
This is coupled with the rapid implementation of the Public Order Act 2023, the removal of all defences of justification and lawful excuse for those who damage property such as that of Elbit and a situation where the Police can preemptively arrest demonstrators.
As people may know I was one of the 4 defendants in the Shenstone 5 Elbit trial. We are awaiting sentence on June 26 and would like the biggest turnout. A number of activities are planned before that but the Judge has made it clear that our ‘offences’, intent to cause criminal damage crosses the ‘custody threshold’.
There is a concerted attempt by the judiciary to keep juries in the dark and not to inform them of their right to decide issues according to their conscience. Trudy Warner was recently arrested outside the Inner London Crown Court for holding up a placard informing juries of their rights and a number of other defendants have been gaoled by Judge Silas Reid for even mentioning to a jury why they were protesting.
We need to join Climate Action and other protestors who are prepared to defy these attempts to intimidate activists who are informing juries of their rights. 24 such protestors did so this week at Reid’s court and we should be planning to do this regularly at all trials.
Otherwise we are accepting the growing climate of repression without fighting back. There are major trials of Palestine Action and others coming up in London, Bristol and elsewhere and some defendants face long prison sentences if found guilty.
Coupled with the near abolition of the right to strike, the left has to move from talking to taking action.
Jurors should ask themselves why they are not being allowed to hear such arguments.
No arguments for the defence: No conviction.
Tony finishes his post by saying that the left has to move from talking to taking action. Well yes and no. What it’s all about in the end – whatever it is – is public awareness. Allow me to use a personal example to make my point:
About twenty-five years ago I did a survey asking people two things, the first of which was do they know how many people are killed on the roads every year in the UK. Not ONE of the dozens of people I asked actually knew, and so I then asked how many do they think it is, and practically everyone thought it was either around five hundred or a thousand a year. The actual figure at the time was over three-and-a-half thousand. (I also asked them if they knew of anyone who had been killed on the roads, and practically all of them knew of someone who had been killed – ie a family member, a friend, or a neighbour etc).
And the reason why none of them knew the actual road fatality figures is because the MSM rarely if ever mention them when they are published by the DfT at the end of September every year. And my point is this of course: That the most crucial element in trying to bring about change – or prevent something – is awareness of course, whether it’s the plight (and the history) of the Palestinians, or exposing the falsehoods regarding Russia and the conflict in Ukraine, or the A/S smear campaign – and the subversion of democracy – dissembled against Jeremy and the left. And the MSM itself of course!
What we need is a network of groups all across the UK putting leaflets together and printing off a thousand or two each and putting them through peoples doors (and at the end of each leaflet saying: PLEASE COPY AND/OR SCAN AND CIRCULATE TO FRIENDS & RELATIVES & WORK COLLEAGUES ETC.
I think the Good Law Project is challenging the legal basis of silencing defendants from explaining to judges and juries that their offences were committed to prevent greater wrong. It seems an opaque area of law at present.
The legal defence of “necessity” has long been accepted in principle and has been heard in a wide variety of cases in modern times. It’s often been persuasive, regardless of the nature of the case tried or which entity (judge or jury) decides the innocence or guilt of the offender(s).
From what I remember, when the “Stansted 15” case came up (they stopped a deportation flight taking off with refugees whose legal rights to asylum hadn’t yet been properly determined), the judge blocked the defendants from making their legal defence of necessity and from explaining how careful they’d been to ensure their actions were as minimally harmful as possible. The “Stansted 15” won on appeal against various rulings and behaviours by the judge.
What surprised me on looking up previous instances in which principled protesters had sought to defend themselves on the grounds of “necessity” was how MUDDLED the whole situation was. Many courts and judges allowed them to use the defence, others didn’t … in apparently similar cases. Who was or wasn’t allowed to put forward this defence seemed to be at the whim of the individual judge.
See the article about ‘Lawyers for Israel’ on Craig Murray’s website:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/05/lawyers-for-israel-oppose-conscience/
Mike was given a heavier sentence than Charlie because according to the judge, Mike was an experienced activist. The assumption must therefore be that the more you support human rights, the more the system will punish you. Check Mike’s Go Fund Me page:
http://Rebelsinprison.uk/rebels/mike-lynch-white