Vai al contenuto principale

A UK man was acquitted of terrorism charges after delivering his own closing argument:

The devil exists amongst those who deliberately starve children to death because they rationalise that those children will only grow up to be terrorists. It exists among those who bomb tent encampments and literally burn children and their parents alive. It exists amongst those who call Palestinians “human animals” the same phrase used by Himmler, the head of the SS about Jewish children in a speech on October 4, 1943 to senior SS Generals.

https://greghadfield.medium.com/tony-greenstein-the-most-important-half-hour-of-my-life-d03f7877a492

1/2 🧵

#politics #goodnews

255

Caricamento...

9
242

Caricamento...

Commenti (9)

This is not a new story. Nelson Mandela — whose statue stands today in Parliament Square, facing the Houses of Parliament — was described by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan as a terrorist, and the movement he led as a terrorist movement. If this Act had been in force in those decades, that movement would have been proscribed — and anyone in Britain who wrote “we should congratulate them” would have been at risk of standing exactly where I am standing now. Mandela himself said:

“The West sees liberation movements as terrorist movements — and that is why I am accused of supporting terrorism.”

Now let me be precise about what I am saying, because it is not what the prosecution may pretend I am saying. I am not comparing any organisation to Nelson Mandela. The comparison is not between organisations at all. It is between governments — then and now — and how easily they attach the word terrorist to whoever opposes the policy of the day. Today, Mandela is widely admired. The label of terrorism should be applied to those who are terrorists not those who are not.

https://greghadfield.medium.com/tony-greenstein-the-most-important-half-hour-of-my-life-d03f7877a492

2/2 🧵

0

@datum@zeroes.ca Thanks for spotlighting this.

0

@datum@zeroes.ca

That was a long speech, I don't know how the jury followed all of it.

But as someone with the freedom to read it at my leisure at home - I love it. He picked a brilliant set of historical references and focused right on the key points: vague wording of the law used to prosecute him, uneven enforcement of that law, and laughable justification for his prosecution in particular.

0

@datum@zeroes.ca Jesus fucking Christ. "There's something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ARgRObctFZ8

This doesn't even feel like a test case. In the US, I'd imagine that this would set precedent (if it even went to trial), and everyone afterward could breathe a sigh of relief. But I'm guessing in this case, he just got lucky, but the law stays the same, and the next 10 people with an opinion will be locked up.

0

@datum@zeroes.ca
Read it: It’s a good speech 👍
And a bad law 😾

0

@datum@zeroes.ca What a speech. My goodness. That was powerful.

0

@datum@zeroes.ca

I don't normally read an article shared here all the way through right away, but I'm glad I did this time.

0

If what's written is accurate: it brought me to tears, for a variety of reasons.

Additionally: I am unable to express that emotion in the safe space where I would normally express it, because I am now afraid to even mention the keyword in that space. These words of the author ring true:

"… a fantasy that they have created out of nothing. …"

"… It takes a certain malevolence to read that into …"

@datum@zeroes.ca thank you, and thank you to @bsdphk@fosstodon.org whose boost brought it to my attention.

0