Quote Originally Posted by jon1959 View Post
Yes, the law is the law. It is very clear on proscribed groups.

It is a criminal offence for a person in the UK to:

- belong to a proscribed organisation;
- invite support for a proscribed organisation;
- recklessly express support for a proscribed organisation;
- arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation;
- wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation; or
- publish an image of an article such as a flag or logo in the same circumstances.

That is why Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh has been charged. He has probably broken the law. The penalty could be up to 14 years in prison.

My point on that was to compare and contrast his actions and those potential sanctions to the actions and likely consequences for the perpetrators and enablers of genocide. I'm not OK with that. I don't defend or support any of the UK's proscribed organisations (they are violent, reactionary and repressive), but those with the greatest blood on their hands are seemingly in the clear!

For the record the EU doesn't have the same proscription process as nation states, but it did include the whole of Hamas in its' sanctions regime from 2003. I don't think that has any relevance to the decision of the UK government to step up its proscription in 2021. Between 2001 and 2021 the broader Hamas movement was not proscribed by the UK government (its military wing and arguably its political leadership was). Something changed in 2021. Despite your concern about conspiracy theories, I think that something was Priti Patel.
Yeah and it's a fair point, and many will agree to varying levels about the various international conflicts that are clearly of much greater importance and scale.

But that doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to all. There are clear precedents on what are and aren't proscribed groups and also clear precedents where incitement (on or offline) leads to sentences despite there being a much bigger issue at play which many would sympathise with. It's also pretty unambiguous what waving a flag and shouting "up" something means. That's why I think their bombastic response was also wrong.

The maximum sentence would be obscene but I really don't see how this isn't a fascinating test of a legal system that many have less faith than they used to in.