Five of the six Palestine Action activists tried in the first Filton case outside Woolwich Crown Court (Photo: Alamy)
Activists could be sentenced as terrorists despite not being convicted of terrorism
Documents suggest “terrorism connection” was added to cases to help justify proscription of Palestine Action
Authorities refuse to say when criminal damage crosses threshold into terrorism
Intelligence report indicates actions costing over £1m could be treated as terrorism
Arms companies could be incentivised to inflate protest-related damage costs to aggravate charges
Palestine Action ban could be overturned next month
Four activists could be sentenced as terrorists next month despite not being convicted of terrorism offences.
…
During the trial, a jury was asked to decide whether the defendants were guilty of criminal charges but not allowed to know there was also a “terrorism connection”.
The 12-panel jury was also not permitted to hear why the defendants chose to target the Israeli arms firm, stripping the action of all context – namely the genocide in Gaza.
It is now up to the presiding judge to decide whether to sentence the activists with a “terrorism connection” – and, if he does, the ramifications will be enormous.
Unlike most prisoners in the UK who serve around 40 percent of their sentences, they would have to serve their full terms unless they can convince a parole board that they have “reformed” after serving at least two-thirds of it.
Once released, they could be treated as terrorists for decades.
And this could all happen without a jury ever finding them guilty of any terrorist offence, marking the first case where activists risk prosecution under terrorism provisions.
Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/Orcas discuss Genocide-supporting and complicit Zionists. Donald Trump, Keith Starmer, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are acknowledged as evil genocide-complicit and supporting cnuts.
In what can only be described as an acceleration and expansion of the bellicose and dangerous far-right populist movement around the globe, the U.S. government of Donald Trump is reportedly seeking to build an international coalition to oppose the anti-fascist left.
Washington says U.S. counterterrorism officials are organizing a summit in the summer to discuss and develop “strategies to counter the anti-fascist movement.”
White House and State Department officials have described such groups as a “serious threat to national security,” lumping together “anarchists, Marxists, and violent extremists.” The State Department claimed these organizations have waged “a terrorist campaign in the United States and across the Western world for decades, involving bombings, beatings, shootings, and riots in the service of their extreme agenda.”
The move comes as Trump has faced significant domestic opposition to many of his policies. This includes a sustained two-month popular uprising in Minnesota against violent anti-migrant sweeps by ICE, which ultimately forced the president to back down and withdraw the federal agents.
Labelling virtually all opposition as “terrorist” is an alarming escalation in Trump’s rhetoric, and it suggests a significant shift in counterterrorism priorities. The fact that the U.S. is trying to internationalize this effort—invitees to the summit include Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, India, and Indonesia—suggests that such a shift may be underway in other countries as well.
Reuters reported that sources within U.S. counterterrorism say the summit will encourage intelligence sharing and common strategies. Other reports suggest that Washington is considering multiple international conferences, beginning in May with a workshop with foreign law enforcement officials in The Hague to “teach them about the dangers of far-left groups and how to counter them.”
The U.S. push comes as right-wing political forces in Canada are also agitating to label dissent as “terrorist.” In a move eerily reminiscent of the McCarthy era, Conservative MP Garnett Genuis has reportedly asked federal departments and agencies to determine whether any of their employees or members have current or prior association with anti-fascist and anti-racist left movements.
Right-wing politicians and media typically use the term “antifa” to refer to a sweeping range of organizations and movements that oppose fascist, racist, and far-right groups. With such a broad interpretation, virtually any political grouping, however large or small, can be described as “terrorist” or “a threat to national security” and subject to state repression.
In no small part, this is the desperate response of a system that is in crisis and decay. As capitalism’s social contradictions sharpen—evidenced by recurring and deepening social and economic crises, increased inter-imperialist rivalry and competition, and the accelerating drive to militarism and war—an increasingly broad section of the population becomes drawn into opposition and resistance.
Cutting off the organizational and political leadership of this growing movement against capitalism, even if it is nascent, is of utmost importance to the ruling class. If the commanders of capitalism, at least those in the U.S., are indeed planning ahead through their “anti-anti-fascist summit,” then working people had better start doing the same.
The working-class movement needs to get to work on developing its own independent political action plan and building up organizations and alliances that can carry it out. This includes working to win more people over to political positions like opposing NATO and other imperialist military alliances, rejecting corporate trade deals and tripartite “social dialogue” with the bosses and their governments, and insisting on the necessity of class struggle.
It also means combatting anti-socialist and anti-communist propaganda, including within labor and “left” movements. Narratives that deny the achievements of the Soviet people, or which draw false distinctions between the Cuban people and the Cuban government, or which equate communism with fascism and terror—these kinds of lies are all designed to divide and weaken the working-class movement, and to reinforce the dictatorship of capital over working people.
It’s true that capitalism is not always fascist. But it’s also true that fascism is always capitalist, and when capitalism is in crisis, it is anti-anti-fascist. This is what we are seeing now, and this is why the working class, which alone has the power to transform society, must get organized.
People’s Voice
As with all op-eds published by People’s World, the views expressed here are those of the author.
We hope you appreciated this article. At People’s World, we believe news and information should be free and accessible to all, but we need your help. Our journalism is free of corporate influence and paywalls because we are totally reader-supported. Only you, our readers and supporters, make this possible. If you enjoy reading People’s World and the stories we bring you, please support our work by donating or becoming a monthly sustainer today. Thank you!
Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone …Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Yvette Cooper proscribed Palestine Action last June (Photo: Alamy)
Exclusive: Former home secretary was told proscribing Palestine Action within six months of key Filton hearing could prejudice the case but went ahead anyway.
Britain’s former home secretary Yvette Cooper was warned that proscribing Palestine Action could prejudice the trial of six activists but went ahead anyway, it can be revealed.
Internal documents seen by Declassified show the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) advised Cooper not to proscribe Palestine Action within six months of any Filton hearings.
The Filton 24 are pro-Palestine activists accused of breaking into a factory owned by Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms firm, in Bristol in August 2024.
The CPS was concerned that proscribing Palestine Action within six months of the hearings would prejudice their right to a fair trial.
Yet Cooper went against this advice and announced the proscription of Palestine Action less than five months before the first of those trials began in November last year.
Last week, the Guardian also revealed that Cooper risked being in contempt of court by justifying the proscription of Palestine Action in a column published in the Observer.
In that article, Cooper said the charges against the defendants involved a “terrorism connection” and accused the group of “intimidation, violence, weapons, and serious injuries to individuals”.
Defence lawyers sought to argue in court that Cooper had committed an “abuse of process” by discussing details of the case that were under reporting restrictions.
Mr Justice Johnson dismissed that application despite acknowledging that Cooper was “specifically advised that going ahead with the article might prejudice these proceedings”.
Taken together, the revelations suggest Cooper prioritised securing and justifying the proscription of Palestine Action over respecting due process.
Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/Keir Starmer says that he’s banning words and phrases now as well as placards.Palestine Action joke that appeared in the UK satirical magazine ‘Private Eye’.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel arrive for a news conference at the Department of Justice on December 4, 2025, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
A former official from Trump’s first term said the FBI will be able to throw the full might of the surveillance state at “Americans whose primary ‘offense’ may be ideological dissent.”
The Trump administration is about to embark on a massive crackdown on what it describes as a scourge of rampant left-wing “terrorism.”
But the US Department of Justice (DOJ) memo ordering the crackdown has critics fearing it will go far beyond punishing those who plan criminal acts and will instead be used to criminalize anyone who expresses opposition to President Donald Trump and his agenda.
Earlier this month, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi had sent out a memo ordering the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.”
As part of this effort, Bondi set Thursday as a deadline for all law enforcement agencies to “coordinate delivery” of intelligence files related to “antifa” or “antifa-related activities” to the FBI.
The memo identifies those who express “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity,” as potential targets for investigation.
This language references National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, or NSPM-7, a memo issued by Trump in September, which identified this slate of left-wing beliefs as potential “indicators” of terrorism following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in September.
In comments made before the alleged shooter’s identity was revealed, Trump attributed the murder to “those on the radical left [who] have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis,” adding that “this kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country and must stop right now.”
Weeks after Kirk’s shooting, Trump designated “antifa” as a “domestic terrorism organization,” a move that alarmed critics because “antifa,” short for “anti-fascist,” is a loosely defined ideology rather than an organized political group.
Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller, meanwhile, promised that the Trump administration would use law enforcement to “dismantle” left-wing groups he said were “fomenting violence.” He suggested that merely using heated rhetoric—including calling Trump and his supporters “fascist” or “authoritarian”—“incites violence and terrorism.”
Klippenstein said that “where NSPM-7 was a declaration of war on just about anyone who isn’t MAGA,” the memo that went into effect Thursday “is the war plan for how the government will wage it on a tactical level.”
In comments to the Washington Post, former FBI agent Michael Feinberg, who is now a senior editor at Lawfare, said it was “a pretty damn dangerous document,” in part because “it is directed at a specific ideology, namely the left, without offering much evidence as to why that is necessary.”
Studies have repeatedly shown that while all political factions contain violent actors, those who commit acts of political violence are vastly more likely to identify with right-wing causes.
Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security under the first Trump administration, pointed out in a blog post the extraordinary surveillance capability that the FBI will have at its disposal to use against those it targets.
He said it “includes the FBI’s ability to marshal facial recognition, phone-tracking databases, license-plate readers, financial records review, undercover operations, and intelligence-sharing tools against Americans whose primary ‘offense’ may be ideological dissent.”
“Unfortunately, once you are fed into that system, there is no real ‘due process’ until charges are brought,” Taylor said. “It’s not like you get a text-message notification when the FBI begins investigating you for terrorism offenses, and there’s certainly no ‘opt-out’ feature. For this to happen, you don’t need to commit violence. You don’t even need to plan it. Under the administration’s new guidelines, you merely need to be flagged for association with the anti-fascist movement to become a potential target.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the Post, “It is a throwback to McCarthyism and the worst abuses of [Former FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover’s FBI to use federal law enforcement against Americans purely because of their political beliefs or because they disagree with the current president’s politics.”
Taylor argued: “He’s right, but it’s actually more dangerous than that. Joseph McCarthy had subpoenas and hearings and created his blacklists of ‘communist’ Americans from Capitol Hill. And while controversial FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover may have had old-school wiretaps and informants, Donald Trump’s team has algorithmic surveillance, bulk data collection, and a post-9/11 security state designed for permanent emergency. It’s like comparing a snowflake with a refrigerator.”
Keir Starmer warns against following the https://onaquietday.org blog.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.
Indigenous demonstrators shout slogans during a demonstration at Parque Central Cayambe, Ecuador, as part of the national strike on October 1, 2025 | Felipe Stanley/Agencia Press South/Getty Images
Taking from Trump’s playbook and reviving colonial trope, President Noboa labelled Indigenous protesters ‘terrorists’
Recent years have seen Western governments extoll their democratic values while leading increasingly harsh crackdowns on dissent, with activists arrested and accused of terrorism.
Now, Ecuador has gone even further. President Daniel Noboa’s far-right government met recent nationwide anti-austerity protests with a brutality that has left two protesters dead, 473 injured, 12 missing, and 206 detained, according to the Alliance of Human Rights Organisations of Ecuador.
A 31-day national strike erupted on 22 September, nine days after Noboa removed fuel subsidies, raising the price of diesel by 55% from $1.80 to $2.80 per gallon. The demonstrations, which disrupted the movement of goods and people across the country as protesters blocked main roads, were led by Ecuador’s largest Indigenous organisation, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities, which represents many of the people who will be the hardest hit by the price hikes.
The government responded by imposing a state of emergency and deploying troops to break up protesters, leading to state-inflicted violence that drew criticism from civil rights groups in Ecuador and across the world.
Human Rights Watch reported it had “verified 15 videos” of “soldiers or police officers forcibly dispersing peaceful demonstrations and using tear gas and other ‘less lethal’ weapons recklessly and indiscriminately”, while Amnesty International warned of “excessive use of force against protesters by the security forces, possible arbitrary arrests, as well as the opening of abusive criminal proceedings and freezing of bank accounts belonging to social leaders and protesters”.
The unrest came as Ecuadorian voters prepare to vote on a series of referendums on 16 November. Perhaps the most controversial question they will answer is over whether to accept foreign military bases on Ecuador’s territory.
The ballot does not explicitly refer to the United States, but it may as well do; this week, US homeland security secretary Kristi Noem made her second visit to the Latin American country in four months to scout out locations for new US military bases.
Noboa’s government has long pushed for greater alignment with the US. While Ecuadorian opposition leaders warn that US military bases would threaten Ecuador’s sovereignty, both Noboa and Donald Trump’s administrations argue that they would help to stop transnational crime gangs from using the country to smuggle drugs from South America into the US.
Although polls suggest a slight majority of voters are against the bases, many are still undecided. Regardless of how they vote, Trump’s influence over Noboa’s government is already clear from the reaction to the recent Indigenous-led demonstrations. Taking from the US president’s playbook, ministers accused protesters of carrying out “terrorist acts” – directly echoing language used against activists in the US – and at least 13 people have been charged with terrorism after allegedly attacking the offices of police in Otavalo, a city in northern Ecuador.
This decision to cry terrorism is part of a strategy to turn social discontent into a security threat. Rather than answering the demands of protesters – the majority of whom were the poor people, transport workers and Indigenous peoples who will be hardest hit by fuel price increases – the government has chosen to criminalise dissent and militarise social conflict to protect its austerity measures from popular resistance.
But protest is not terrorism. It is the democratic voice of those who suffer most from inequality.
Unequal sacrifices
In Ecuador, an oil-producing country, the dispute over fuel subsidies is a recurring issue.
The subsidies have kept prices for petrol and diesel artificially low since the 1970s, but consecutive governments have argued they put too much strain on the national budget, costing the state billions, while international financial institutions have criticised them for “distorting” the economy. In 2022, the subsidies were equivalent to around 2% of Ecuador’s GDP, according to a report by the Ministry of Economy and Finance.
But for farmers, truck drivers and informal workers, the subsidies provide indispensable respite from low incomes and rising living costs. Therein lies the clash: what governments see as an easy way to make savings on their balance sheet will mean hunger for many ordinary people.
One key measure of the cost of living in Ecuador is the monthly price of the ‘basic family basket’, a government-defined set of goods needed to sustain a family of four, including food, clothing, medicine, household items and transport costs. In May this year, the price of that basic family basket reached $812, while the monthly minimum wage remained at $470. This disparity will only worsen with the removal of the diesel subsidy, which will make transport, food and the production of goods more expensive.
Previous attempts to scrap the fuel subsidies have caused the social unrest that has marked Ecuadorian politics in recent years. Two previous governments tried to do so in 2019 and 2022. Both instances sparked huge demonstrations that forced ministers into U-turns.
This time, Noboa’s government, which was elected in 2023, does not appear to be backing down. The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities eventually called off their strike on 23 October in the wake of the state’s brutal repression, having been unable to secure any concessions.
If the government does succeed in removing the subsidies, it will lead to rising costs that will not be borne equally across Ecuador, a plurinational and multi-ethnic country where wealth is concentrated in certain areas and among certain racial groups.
The most recent data finds that 72% of the population self-identifies as mestizo, a term that refers to a person of mixed European and Indigenous American ancestry. The next largest demographic group is the Montubio people (7.4%), a rural ethnic group from coastal Ecuador; followed by Afro-Ecuadorians (7.2%), who also primarily live in the coastal provinces; then Indigenous people (7%) who largely live in the highlands and Amazon; and white people (6.1%), who have historically been based in larger cities.
The Afro-Ecuadorians and Indigenous populations in the country’s Amazon and rural coastal provinces will suffer most from the increases in transport and labour costs. Many of the families who will be affected are already impoverished, with a 40% poverty rate in these areas, far above the national rate of 28%.
Ecuador’s coast is dominated by export-oriented agribusiness and ports; the Andean highlands by public administration, services and manufacturing; while the oil extraction in the Amazonian east accounts for a large part of the country’s national income, without translating into local well-being.
The paradox is evident: the territories that produce wealth also face the greatest inequalities and deficits in health, education and basic services.
Women will also be hit harder by the removal of the fuel subsidies than men. The country’s 3.6% unemployment rate masks key gender inequalities; among women the rate is 4.6%, compared to 2.8% among men. Similarly, only 27% of women have access to adequate employment, with sufficient income and stability, compared to 41% of men, according to official figures.
The greater job insecurity created by rising food and household goods prices will disproportionately affect women. They will be forced to work longer hours to survive, particularly where they are responsible for the care of children or elderly relatives – another burden that disproportionately falls on women.
There is no neutrality in austerity: there is a regressive redistribution that privileges fiscal balance at the expense of the country’s most impoverished.
‘Terrorism’ and state coercion
While protests started in the immediate aftermath of the announcement on 13 September that the subsidies would be scrapped, the coordinated national strike began on 22 September.
Over the following 31 days, news broadcasts were full of images of this resistance across Ecuador: closed roads in Cuenca, pots and pans banging in Quito, women and children fleeing tear gas in San Rafael de la Laguna.
President Noboa imposed a state of emergency in many provinces, a measure that suspends constitutional guarantees such as the freedom of assembly, the inviolability of the home and correspondence, and the freedom of movement due to curfews. Last year, the Constitutional Court issued a warning to the president over the repeated use of this tool, which it said should be applied only in “extraordinary” circumstances.
By also condemning the protesters as “terrorists”, the government aims to delegitimise collective action, depoliticise the dispute over income and enable repression. Labelling Indigenous people as ‘offenders’ revives an old colonial trope of ‘internal enemies’, where racialised bodies are seen as a threat to order.
Noboa’s discourse is also part of a well-known Latin American genealogy: during the years of counterinsurgency, the labels of ‘subversion’ and ‘terrorism’ justified massacres, states of siege and arbitrary detentions. Today, that same language is being revived to shield a neoliberal model that is based not on consensus but on coercion.
For now, the question is not whether Ecuador can sustain fuel subsidies in the long term, but who gets to decide this. Removing subsidies without dialogue or progressive compensation mechanisms is governing against the majority.
A truly democratic policy would require real dialogue with Indigenous, Afro-Ecuadorian and peasant organisations, and including their voices in defining policies on the prices of utilities, including fuel, water and energy.
Wage and labour reform is also needed to link the minimum wage to the cost of the basic basket of goods and reduce gender and ethnic gaps, as well as territorial investment in the Amazon and rural areas to provide health, education and basic services. Finally, the demilitarisation of social conflict and the repeal of laws that criminalise protest.
The Noboa government seems to be choosing another path: shielding austerity with repression. But labelling those who defend life and bread for their families as terrorists does not resolve the conflict: it deepens it.
Protest is the language of those who refuse to be expelled from history by a model that promises order in exchange for inequality and silence.
*Rose Barboza is a Brazilian researcher and doctoral candidate in Social Sciences at the Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal. She specialises in transitional justice, feminist epistemologies and critical race theory. Her current work explores comparative cases of state repression and social movements across Latin America.
