So imagine you have been chosen as a juror to represent the democratic process in a UK court of law, but what you believe to be morally right, and what international courts have legally substantiated, is in direct contradiction with the legal system itself.
Such was the case for a jury recently when two defendants were charged with criminal damage after occupying the roof of UAV Tactical Systems, an Elbit drone factory in Leicester, for six days from 19th May 2021. What verdict would you reach knowing what you know about Israel’s unlawful and inhumane war against the people of Gaza and the west’s complicity?
Elbit Systems is an Israeli-based international military technology company. The company utilises its relationship with the Israeli military as a marketing tool and a testing ground for its technology and often markets its products as “battle-proven” which in plain language means proven an effective weapon when tested on Palestinians.
Elbit’s Leicester-based factory is used to assemble drone equipment used by the Israeli military in its genocidal mission to eradicate the Palestinian people. According to military experts, drone-launched missiles have the capacity to minimise civilian casualties because of their pinpoint accuracy but, as Human Rights Watch’s investigation in Gaza demonstrates, drones, much like sniper rifles, are only as good at sparing the lives of innocent victims as the care taken by the people operating them. Israel’s intent, as the world is witnessing, is the mass murder of civilians, mostly Palestinian women and children, an objective that its “battle-proven” drones have fulfilled perfectly.
In this particular court case, the two activists from Palestine Action were unanimously acquitted of criminal damage by a jury in Leicester Crown Court after one hour and 40 minutes of deliberation.
In another trial at Bradford Crown Court, four defendants were alleged to have committed criminal damage at Teledyne Defence and Space in Shipley, West Yorkshire.
The defendants’ action was taken in response to the ongoing bombardment of Gaza at the time. The defence argued that the action taken was necessary to save lives and prevent the greater property damage in Palestine. In her closing speech, Mira Hammad from Garden Court North Chambers told the jury that “The consequences of failing to act would mean the death of children, parents, grandparents in Palestine” and prioritising Elbit’s right to property over Palestinians right to live is a “smokescreen of dehumanisation”.
At the start of their trial at Bradford Crown Court, prosecutor Gerald Hendron said the four had “caused extensive damage” during their protest. The jury was shown video footage of the defendants cutting their way through the fence and climbing onto the roof, smashing a window to the building, holding a sledgehammer tied to a rope down a hole in the roof and swinging it from side to side.
The defendants accepted that they inflicted damage but argued their actions were justified because in their view, Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. They believed producing component parts for fighter jets and missiles used to commit genocide against people amounted to a war crime.
Following extensive legal argument on the scope of “lawful excuse” in sections 1 and 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the trial judge withdrew the defences of necessity, protection of property and prevention of crime – effectively leaving the defendants with no defence in law. Despite that, after almost two days in retirement, the jury failed to reach a verdict, despite the defendants having no defence in law. A retrial is expected.
On the issue of climate change and protest, 26 protestors have been imprisoned in the UK on charges of conspiracy to intentionally or recklessly cause a public nuisance for demanding action to address the climate crisis – a crisis that threatens everything we know and love, yet our elected leaders continue to do nothing about except to protect the fossil fuel culprits and imprison those who stand up for change. Despite prison sentences of up to five years for stopping traffic, campaigners are not deterred. They are fighting to protect their families, their communities, the planet, from the danger imposed on all of us through continued oil, gas and coal burning.
An unreliable system for the bourgeoisie
Our justice system has always existed to represent the interests of the ruling elite, and it has served them well because they have been in control of the narrative and used it effectively to manipulate how most people thought. In our modern age, when we imbue our media through global channels, often live streamed directly to our devices, and the hypocrisy of the imperialist system is there for all to see, controlling the story line has become challenging, making our existing systems of justice less reliable for the bourgeoise.
During the summer of 2024 the British government has been trialing the use of the kind of courts they used against the Irish National Liberation fighters in the north of Ireland, called Diplock courts. The courts were established in the 1970s in response to a report by Lord Diplock, who cited two primary reasons for his recommendation that jury trials should be suspended: the danger of perverse acquittals and jurors being threatened.
As threatening jurors is not an issue in these more recent political trials, we can only assume the problem for the government and its imperial masters is how to imprison protesters and dissenters when recent juries have been reluctant to give guilty verdicts believing the law or the circumstances themselves to be unjust – perverse acquittals! In other words, the democratic process of trial by jury can no longer be relied upon to protect the state from the people!
The introduction of the Diplock courts means there is no jury and the judicial process becomes a rubber-stamping process. It doesn’t matter what the evidence is, you speed up the proceedings, deny the defendant reasonable time to assemble a case or even get the right lawyer, appoint a judge who will do your bidding and get a conviction. Keir Starmer claims he is trialing Diplock courts in Britain on the premise of getting nasty racists off our streets as quickly as possible. Labour doesn’t want to stop racism, if it did, there are effective existing laws in place to do that. This new Labour government wants an excuse to create a parallel justice system for certain offences (‘hate speech’, ‘supporting terrorism’) so it can move as quickly as possible from arrest to prison. No due process, no jury, no dissent. When you can’t convince a jury to implement an unjust draconian law, you must do it yourself!
Imperialism on the run
There are three conditions necessary for revolution. The first is when the ruling class is no longer able to rule in the way it once did. The recent examples of draconian sentencing and the introduction of Diplock courts suggest imperialism is shaky.
The second condition is when people are no longer prepared to be ruled in the way they have been and begin to fight for change because they have no other choice. This is exactly what the Palestinian resistance movement exemplifies, and the strength of that movement gives inspiration and stimulation to broader resistance movements.
The third condition is the willingness of the masses to accept and follow the leadership of an effective and capable revolutionary organisation in overthrowing the obsolete and decaying system that is holding back the progress of humanity. We must wake up and take a deep whiff of the foul stench pervading our society; that wafts up from the decaying system of monopoly capitalism and keeps 99% of the world in rotting conditions. When we, do the third condition is engaged and we organise!
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.