Palestine Action activists sentenced as terrorists
Published 12 Jun, 2026 19:41 | Updated 12 Jun, 2026 20:45
Four Palestine Action activists convicted of causing criminal damage to an Israeli arms plant in the UK have been sentenced as terrorists due to the blacklisting of their organization. Dozens of the group’s supporters were arrested outside the courthouse as the verdicts were read out.
The defendants took part in a raid on an Elbit Systems factory near Bristol in 2024. After ramming the gate with a decommissioned prison van, they destroyed computers, drones, and other equipment inside, causing around £1.2 million ($1.6 million) in damage.
Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Zainab Rajwani, 21, were found guilty of criminal damage last month, with Corner also convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on a police officer with a sledgehammer.
Handing down the sentences on Friday, Mr. Justice Johnson said that due to the “terrorist connection” of the offenses, all four would receive harsh punishment. None of the four were charged with terror-related offenses, and by sentencing them as terrorists, Johnson set a new precedent in British law.
“I am sure that one of the purposes of your offending was to influence the United Kingdom government… and was for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause,” Johnson told the defendants during Friday’s hearing.
Head and Kamio were jailed for six years, Rajwani for five years and eight months, and Corner for eight years and eight months.
Palestine Action, a protest group whose members have vandalized British military equipment and Israeli-linked sites, was declared a proscribed organization by the British government last July. The decision placed Palestine Action in the same category as Al Qaeda and the IRA, and criminalized public displays of support for the organization.
As the sentences were handed down, several hundred Palestine Action supporters protested outside Woolwich Crown Court in London. Police arrested more than 100 demonstrators for holding signs and placards endorsing the group.
The proscription was ruled unlawful by London’s High Court in February, although the designation remains in force pending a final judgment.
South Wales Police Now Forced to Halt Their Plan to Arrest People for ‘Anti-Muslim Hostility’
In the U.K., the South Wales Police wanted to adopt a definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” that went far beyond the definition accepted by the British government. Faced, however, with pushback from the Free Speech Union, the South Wales Police has for now halted its attempts to impose its expansive interpretation of what constitutes anti-Muslim hostility, that it thinks should no. be protected as “free speech.” More on this attempt to smuggle in an Islamic blasphemy law can be found here:
South Wales Police shelve Islamic blasphemy law after FSU legal threat
by Max Thompson, Free Speech Union, June 10, 2026:
South Wales Police have shelved their controversial bespoke Islamic blasphemy law after the Free Speech Union threatened them with a judicial review.
The force has written to the Free Speech Union to confirm that it has now “paused” its adoption of an “anti-Muslim hostility” definition that went even further than the Government’s own version, announced in March.
Under guidance issued to officers, they were instructed to log anything deemed to be beyond “legitimate criticism” of Islam. That would inevitably have included criticism of the hijab or halal food. More concerning still, it would have deterred individuals from speaking out on issues such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism….
If the South Wales police were to have had their way, they would have almost every criticism of Islam or of Muslims recorded for possible charges to later be brought against those making such criticism. This criticism which would not be permitted could include derogatory remarks about hijabs (as examples of misogyny) and halal food (as animal cruelty). Such a definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” would also make people afraid of discussing grooming gangs, or Islam-fueled terrorism.
Credit must also be given to the Conservative MP and shadow minister for equalities, Claire Coutinho, who referred the force to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, urging it to open an investigation on grounds of discrimination. Coutinho described the guidance as “a de facto blasphemy law, which only applies to the discussion of Islam” rather than any other religion….
There is no doubt that the South Wales police were discriminating in favor of Muslims — they issued no similar guidelines about anti-Christian or anti-Jewish comments — and one hopes that the Equality and Human Rights Commission will issue a stiff reproof that may even cause some heads to roll at the South Wales police. That would be a warning to others who may be contemplating their own effort to provide special protection to Islam.
South Wales Police adopted this definition in the wake of the Government announcing their own official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — in March….
“Islamophobia” was always a weasel word, using to describe what is a perfectly rational dislike and even fear of Islam as a “phobia” — that is, an “irrational fear or dislike.” At least the South Wales Police got rid of that word, but its substitute, “anti-Muslim hostility,” is no better. Why should non-Muslims welcome a religion that instructs Muslims that they are “the best of peoples” and non-Muslims ”the most vile of created beings”? And why should there not be fear of a faith whose founder, Muhammad, has proclaimed that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated”?
While the force says it has “paused” the guidance, the Free Speech Union sees no way in which it can return to it.
Reacting to the decision, Lord Young said this should serve as a warning to all other public bodies — especially police forces — considering adopting their own Islamophobia definition.
That “guidance” by the South Wales police is now dead in the water, thanks to Lord Young and the Free Speech Union. One hopes this will have a chilling effect on any public body in the UK that may try to impose a broader definition of anti-Muslim hostility, as a way to protect the faith, and its adherents, from legitimate criticism and the perfectly rational alarm that non-Muslims feel. It’s a victory for free speech and for common sense.
Tommy Robinson set to debate on Islam at Oxford Union, but detained on counterterrorism laws
Shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain is crawling with jihadis, but the British authorities know who their real enemy is:
Tommy Robinson detained at Heathrow under counter-terrorism laws
by Charlie Moloney, Guardian, June 13, 2026:
Tommy Robinson was detained by police on Saturday at Heathrow airport under counter-terrorism laws, after a week in which he rose to further prominence on social media.
It was understood the far-right activist, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was stopped and had his phones seized under section 3 of the Counter-Terrorism Border Security Act 2019.
Robinson used social media to claim he was detained for almost three hours and had his iPhone and Samsung Galaxy phones taken, and to ask his supporters to donate money to fund his legal defence.
A spokesperson for Robinson posted on X: “They likely want to see who he is talking to, and maybe find out who his sources are, sources who will expose politicians for their part in the rape of a generation of British girls.
“This is an attack on free speech, this is an attack on investigative journalism, nothing more nothing less.”
Yes, it is. And now it is unclear whether or not Tommy will be allowed to debate at the Oxford Union about whether the West is right or not to be suspicious of Islam.
I don’t know if Tommy was set to take my place or if I would have been on the team with Tommy, but I was invited to participate in this debate. On March 20, 2026, I received this email from Yıldız Batum, Assistant to the President of the Oxford Union:
I am writing with an invitation for Mr Robert Spencer to join us at the Oxford Union, for one of our historic debates. We would be very grateful if this invitation were to be passed on to him. I have attached a letter from our President, Ms. Arwa Elrayess, and we would be delighted if they were to consider and accept.
Founded in 1823, the Union is the largest society at the University of Oxford and one of the most prestigious debating societies in the world. In the past we have hosted visits from US Presidents Reagan, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton, to politicians like Lord Hannan, Lord Cameron, Lord Gove, the Rt Hon. Boris Johnson, the Rt Hon. Suella Braverman, and Laila Cunningham, to name but a few.
One of the Union’s most famous traditions is our Thursday debates, in which we confront the boldest questions of the day, giving an opportunity for our members to learn from, engage with, and be inspired by our guests. It is our pleasure to invite you to speak on the motion:
This House believes the West is Right to be Suspicious of Islam
For the last decade, the Union has asked questions about migration, multiculturalism, Islam and the overall plausibility of integrating conflicting civilisational traditions within the current liberal order. Yet beneath the rhetoric there is a more fundamental question: are Western suspicions about Islam the product of mere prejudice, or is there a genuine, irreconcilable tension between Islamic beliefs and the liberal, democratic value system that underpins the West’s very existence? Is Islam a religion of peace coexisting within the framework of Judeo-Christian Values, or does it pose an irreversible threat to that particular way of life? This House asks whether the West is right to be suspicious of Islam.
The debate would be held on one of the following Thursday evenings during Trinity term 2026…
Please let us know if any of these dates would be convenient for you. It would be a pleasure and privilege for us to host you.
I replied:
Dear Ms. Batum:Thank you for your kind invitation. As far as I know, I am still banned from entering the UK. Kindly contact the Home Office and get them to remove the ban and send me notice of this removal, and then I will be happy to make arrangements to come to the Oxford Union and debate.CordiallyRobert Spencer
Tommy Robinson set to debate ‘suspicion’ of Islam at Oxford Union despite outcry
Sky News, June 13, 2026:
Tommy Robinson will debate whether the West is “right to be suspicious of Islam” at the Oxford Union, despite outcry from faith leaders, politicians and campaigners.The far-right activist, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, will be joined by fellow far-right campaigner Laurence Fox and journalist Jonathan Sacerdoti for the debate on 17 June.
They will be opposed by former Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, activist Abdullah al Andalusi and podcaster Michael Doward.
Last month, it was reported the debate was delayed after significant outcry about Mr Yaxley-Lennon’s attendance.
The Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, and the founder of the Oxford Foundation, Imam Monawar Hussain, said they were “disturbed and saddened” when he was invited to speak….
It's a shame when high-level religious leaders are afraid of the truth being spoken. They should be happy for the opportunity to prove him wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment