Bernard Spiegal

Yesterday, I was one of a number of people who had their plea hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court – that is, to formally plead either ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ – in respect of charges brought under Section13 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Statement denied

I aimed to make a statement to the court before entering my plea of not-guilty, as did many others. But when I said to the judge this is what I aimed to do, the judge would not allow it. Again, as with so many others. 

This article shares what I would have said (see below), plus a little background.

The Terrorism Act 2000 prescribes (along with other clauses) that:

‘A person in a public place commits an offence if he—

(a)wears an item of clothing, or

(b)wears, carries or displays an article,

in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

Palestine Action (PA), the non-violent, direct-action group, was proscribed by the UK Government on 5^th July 2025. PA’s focus is on the disruption and prevention of arms reaching Israel. It damages military equipment and has successfully closed down Israeli arms factories here in the UK.

The UK is a key supporter of Israel. The UK supplies arms and military-use components to Israel and has done so throughout the genocide being perpetrated in Gaza. 

One consequence of the Terrorism Act, as the above quote makes clear, is that no support for the group can be publicly articulated.

On a nice sunny 9^th August 2025, with hundreds of others I sat in Parliament Square, back turned to Parliament, face down, and silent (not always perfectly maintained) holding a placard that said ‘I OPPOSE GENOCIDE, I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION.

I was then, and am now, opposed to the proscription of Palestine Action. Holding my banner, allegedly, put me, along with others, in contravention of the Terrorism Act 2000 (part-quoted above).  A finding of guilty can result in up to a six-month prison sentence.

Some 2700 people have been arrested under Section 13, with 300+ charged so far. This gives an indication of the level of public disquiet at the proscription.

The hearing 13 January 2026

I aimed to make a statement to the court before entering my plea of not-guilty, as did many others, but the judge would not allow statements to be heard. 

In an earlier session of pleadings, the judge cleared the court of the pubic as more determined souls than me protested the proceedings and needed to be carried out of court – Non-Violent, Passive Resistance. 

The public gallery remained closed. This left the court populated by the judge, a defence barrister for at least one of the others’ charged, and other court functionaries.  Plus, a bevy of security guards by the court door (on the public side). A judicial system – sans public – here entwined in its own procedures. A system talking to itself.  The dictum ‘Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done’ was here, in this court, offended.

So, my timed three/three-and-a-half minutes statement – bit long, to confess, but not a syllable of which was actually articulated. I was put on mute mode. Silenced.

My statement stayed crumpled in my pocket.  But I think it deserves an outing, a little fresh air, so you’ll find it below.

The unspoken statement

The term ‘support’ is shot through with subjectivity, and captures a wide range of potential meanings. How it is interpreted in relation to a specific action or form of words will vary according to context, and the intentions of the person using the term.

In the context of the protests held in Parliament Square on 9^th August it is reasonable to assume that my protest was directed at objecting to the proscription of Palestine Action, an egregious, politically-loaded, short-sighted action of the current government. It does not follow that I support, carte blanche, Palestine Action.

I am deeply concerned that Government, in proscribing Palestine Action, wants to damn it by association, not evidence. PA is committed to non-violence against persons. This in stark contrast to the two other organisations proscribed on the same day: Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. This false, implied coupling of PA with extremist, violent organisations is a deeply tendentious, political act – a damning by association – and not the manifestation of an evidence-based assessment of PA’s beliefs and actions.

By proscribing PA, Government has brought law itself into disrepute: the number of citizens being arraigned before the courts under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, is evidence of that.  

There is a concerted effort by pro-Israel, pro-Zionist organisations to close down any form of speech that is critical of Israel and the political philosophy of Zionism. This negative objective is reinforced in the deployment of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

I should add, as a Jew, that the IHRA offers me no protection at all.

In protecting Israel and the philosophy of Zionism from criticism, whilst at the same time turning away from, or worse, denying, Israel’s murderous, illegal, genocidal actions in Gaza, this is more likely to form the seed bed for an increase in antisemitism, and one can see why.  

This protecting Israel from criticism and censure has led, as in my case, to an unjustified interference to my right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  And to the betrayal of Palestinians infant, child, mother, father – daily being murdered by Israel with UK support. ‘Support’ here meaning the UK’s direct arming of Israel and affording Israel’s barbarous behaviour diplomatic cover.