The three women have been found guilty, but given a suspended sentence.
Standoff between the state, forces that brought us Harrys Place and the Muslim community?
Remember Harry’s Place? The Euston manifesto?
Harry’s Place was a hangout of the cruise missile left (but really right) in the early noughties.
It came to the fore of forums with staunch advocacy of bombing Iraq in 2003.
At the same time, it vigorously opposes boycotts of Israel.
Yes boycotts are far too serious a thing to drop on other countries.
I can see the balance there…not.
Anyway, I didn’t know they were still around.
Quite a few features there happen to involve negative stories around the muslim community or Islam itself.
Anyway, the prosecution of these three women was a result of their project, which provided the images the police hadn’t spotted.
" Hurryupharry Was Crucial to Prosecution"
This court judgement could have been inflammatory had it either jailed women for their clothing, inflaming the muslim community, or released them scot-free, landing the judge in hot water.
The dilemma fell to Judge Tan Ikram, a second-generation immigrant judge with a high public profile.
If you throw a coin ten thousand times the chance of it landing tails-up exactly five thousand times is pretty small.
The apparent ‘balance’ in this case might be seen as rather fortuitous.
It can be viewed as a Muslim judge did his legal duty despite sympathizing with the prisoners.
But what if the judge had taken the view that as it wasn’t only Hamas that flew over the apartheid wall on October 7th, the insignias did not lend any more support to Hamas than other Palestinians? Only Hamas is proscribed by UK law.
(Or the judge might even think the 2000 anti-Terrorism bill was a political, partisan piece of legal nonsense, as it defines ‘support for terrorism’ in terms of groups the government proscribes, whatever the reality)
Would the UK government have risked the reverberative possiblity of a not-guilty verdict? This might have been seen as carte blanche for protests against Israel regarding bombing Gaza - at a bad time for the genocide-supporting UK government.
The situation may have called for some good old fashioned British diplomacy and negotiation.
Alls well that ends well? Matter of opinion…
ED
14/1/24 Judge Decides Not to Punish 3 Women Convicted Over Parachute Images
Judge Tan Ikram has given conditional discharges to three women who displayed images of a parachutist during a pro-Palestinian march in London.
Three women—Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo (L), Heba Alhayek (C), and Pauline Ankunda (R)—accused of wearing paraglider stickers in support of Hamas, arrive at Westminster Magistrates Court in London on Feb. 12, 2024. ¶
By Chris Summers
LONDON—Three women who displayed images which appeared to show a parachutist or paraglider during a pro-Palestinian march only days after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, have been convicted of a terrorist offence.
Heba Alhayek, 29, Pauline Ankunda, 26, and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27, had denied carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion they are supporters of banned organisation Hamas, at a march through Whitehall on Oct. 14, 2023.
Hamas used motorised paragliders as part of its Oct. 7 attacks across the Israeli border, in which 1,200 civilians and military personnel were killed.
Ms. Alhayek and Ms. Ankunda were identified as being the two women seen on a video on social media during the march displaying the images on their backs, while Ms. Taiwo was carrying a placard which had the same image attached to it.
District Judge Tan Ikram rejected the defence’s assertion the image was a symbol of “flight and escape” from Gaza, which was described during the trial as the “world’s largest outdoor prison.”
He said a “reasonable person” would see the images, in the context of the march, as referring to Hamas’s use of paragliders during the Oct. 7 attacks.
Marcher Claimed Images Were Not Hamas Paragliders but Symbols of ‘Liberation and Peace’
2 Pro-Palestinian Protesters Charged With Terror Offences Over Paraglider Image
11/4/2023
Judge Ikram said all three women had admitted they were displaying the images and he said it was relevant whether they had a “guilty mind, [or] mens rea,” as it was an offence of strict liability.
Before sentencing was passed, defence counsel Mark Summers, KC pointed out Ms. Alhayek was from Gaza but he said, “Her and her family were outspoken critics of Hamas,” and he said she had been granted refugee status in Britain because of her “fear of persecution” by Hamas if she returned there.
Mr. Summers described the commission of the offence as “unintended” and said, “She is literally the last person on that march who would have supported that organisation.”
The defence barrister rejected the prosecution’s assertion the three had acted “deliberately and maliciously” and the judge agreed with him on that point.
Judge Says No Evidence Trio Supported Hamas
Judge Ikram said there was no evidence any of the three defendants had supported Hamas or intended to do so by their use of the images, which he said technically showed a parachutist rather than a paraglider, which has a cradle attached.
The judge told the women he believed they had had a “lesson well-learned” and he said he had decided “not to punish” them.
He gave all three a 12-month conditional discharge and they left the dock and were greeted by relatives and supporters, some of whom were in tears.
On Monday the court heard Ms. Taiwo had told police she thought the image was a symbol which represented “liberation and peace.”
Prosecutor Brett Weaver argued the image was of a paraglider and, “in the context” of the march and coming only a week after the attacks, made it clear the defendants supported Hamas.
Ms. Alhayek and Ms. Ankunda initially claimed someone else on the march had attached the images to their backs without their knowledge, but they later admitted they had done it themselves, but denied it meant they supported Hamas or the atrocities on Oct. 7.
Ms. Taiwo submitted a prepared statement in which she denied supporting Hamas and said “she had been handed a placard while on the march and took no notice of what she thought was a blurred image, although she thought it was an image of liberation and peace.”
Mr. Summers, representing Ms. Alhayek and Ms. Ankunda, said the image of the two women wearing the paraglider stickers had first been shared by a Twitter page called Hurryupharry, which he described as a “right-wing American website,” which was “anti-Palestinian.”
A screen grab of video footage of Pauline Ankunda (L) and Heba Alhayek (R) wearing images of parachutes during a pro-Palestinian rally in central London, on Oct. 14, 2023. (Metropolitan Police)
He claimed the police and the prosecution had been fed a narrative of what the images represented by Hurryupharry, arrested the women, and brought them to court without ever examining whether there could be another explanation.
Hurryupharry Was Crucial to Prosecution
In his ruling Judge Ikram said there was no suggestion police evidence-spotters at the march had seen the women wearing the images and he said the matter only came before him because Hurryupharry had spotted the women on a video and had highlighted it, which was followed by comment on social media and then a police investigation.
Mr. Summers produced two witnesses: Victoria Brittain, a former associate foreign editor with The Guardian, who is also a trustee of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, and Sven Kuhn von Burgsdorff, a German diplomat and former European Union envoy to the Palestinians up until July 2023.
Both agreed with Mr. Summers when he said the Gaza Strip was often referred to as the “world’s largest open-air prison” and said the population dreamed of escaping its confines, often by air.
Mr. Von Burgsdorff, a former paratrooper in the German federal army, said he carried out a paragliding “stunt” in July 2023, just before he left his post.
He said it was a “symbolic gesture” to show how young Gazans aspired to fly and be free.
