Tag: Lengthy prison sentences

  • Around the world, people fight for Palestine as authorities crack down

    Spread the love

    Article by Nandini Naira Archer republished from OpenDemocracy under under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

    Demonstrators at the ”National March” in Tunis, Tunisia, on September 19, 2026 | Chedly Ben Ibrahim/NurPhoto/Getty Images

    Wael Naouar has been refusing food since 16 August this year. More than five weeks into his hunger strike, supporters say the Palestinian rights activist imprisoned in Tunis, in a semi-conscious state and on the brink of death: Naour, who is Tunisian, has lost more than 20kg, is struggling to breathe, is fainting repeatedly and suffering from hallucinations. 

    Naouar is not alone, Nabil Channoufi, Ghassan Henchiri and Ghassan Boughdiri — three other activists imprisoned alongside Naouar — have also joined his hunger strike.

    Their alleged crime? 

    Helping organise the 2025 Global Sumud Flotilla, a Palestine solidarity mobilisation in which hundreds of activists from around the world gathered in Tunisia, before setting sail for Gaza in an attempt to break Israel’s illegal siege blockade of the embattled region to provide vital supplies of food and medicine to an embattled population.

    The flotilla — which comprised over 40 ships — never made it to Gaza, but succeeded in refocusing the world’s attention on  the UN-designated genocide perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the Israeli state.

    The story of Naouar’s arrest, his subsequent hunger strike, and the support he and his comrades have received from a wide cross-section of Tunisian society including the Tunisian League for the Defence of Human Rights, the Tunisian General Labour Union and the Tunisian National Bar Association, reveals how the global grassroots movement to demand justice and freedom for Palestinians shows no sign of abating even as many national governments in across the world either chosen silence, or have bowed to pressure from the United States and Israel to crackdown on their own citizens. 

    Around the world, including here in the UK, citizens urging their governments to take action face torture, arrest, prosecution and lengthy prison sentences.

    Earlier this month, Bassem Trifi, president of the Tunisian League for the Defence of Human Rights, visited Naouar in prison with an appeal signed by the Tunisian League for the Defence of Human Rights, the Tunisian General Labour Union and the Tunisian National Bar Association, urging him to stop the hunger strike and preserve his life.

    “His health has deteriorated dramatically and his condition is extremely alarming,” Trifi said at the time, adding that Naouar thanked the organisations and activists supporting him but said his hunger strike would continue until “the injustice imposed upon him and his comrades is lifted.”

    When Solidarity is a Crime

    In Tunisia, the preparations for the 2025 Sumud Flotilla were far from clandestine. Local activists reached out to the relevant Tunisian authorities to seek permission to charter ships and purchase medicines, baby formula and other humanitarian supplies for Gaza, Ghassan Bouazzi, a member of the National Committee for the Defense of the Sumud Flotilla Activists and the Palestinian Cause, told openDemocracy.

    The authorities neither approved nor rejected the application, Bouazzi said, and so the organisers proceeded.

    In September 2025, hundreds of activists descended on Tunisia to prepare the flotilla, organisers spoke to journalists, held public gatherings and coordinated with police and security officials around Sidi Bou Said port, where the boats assembled.

    “The collection of donations, the organisation of the flotilla and, before that, the organisation of a land-based aid convoy… all took place openly and in full view of the Tunisian authorities,” Bouazzi said, adding that the organising headquarters was barely 500 metres from the interior ministry.

    The state did more than simply know about the mobilisation, he continued, “The Tunisian state was, in some sense, a party to the flotilla’s departure, and was fully aware of the entire process through which it was organised.”

    Ships from the global flotilla began departing for Gaza from Italy and Spain in late August 2025, and were joined by vessels from Greece and Tunisia in early September that year. On the night of September 24, several vessels were attacked by drones and the Israeli crackdown swung into full force.

    Back in Tunisia, the mood of the authorities had begun to shift as well.

    In January 2026, Naouar and other organisers in Tunis began publicly discussing preparations for a second flotilla. The following month, organisers submitted an application to the authorities, Bouazzi said. This time, permission was denied.

    Weeks later, the arrests began. 

    The authorities claimed those organising Sumud 2025 had committed fraud, falsification of documents and money laundering. Investigators have since scrutinised the detainees’ bank accounts, assets and financial transactions, as well as those of some relatives, according to Bouazzi. He said that, to his knowledge, the investigation had established no unexplained enrichment or links to money-laundering networks thus far. 

    Seven organisers were initially detained in March. Three have since been released. Naouar, Channoufi, Henchiri and Boughdiri remain in Mornaguia prison.

    Within 48 hours of their arrests, supporters established the National Committee for the Defense of the Sumud Flotilla Activists and the Palestinian Cause. Since then, campaigners have organised repeated protests calling for their release.

    Last week, protesters marched through central Tunis from the headquarters of the Tunisian National Journalists’ Union to Avenue Habib Bourguiba, carrying pictures of the four detainees and calling for an end to the case.

    Then some of the protesters were arrested too.

    From the following night, police detained people who had participated in the demonstration, some from their homes and others from the street. Lawyers said at least 11 had been arrested, while activists put the number at 13 or more. 

    A judge subsequently authorised an additional 48 hours of detention for some of those arrested, whose lawyers said they had been questioned about slogans chanted during the protest. Tunisian authorities had not publicly confirmed the arrests at the time of writing.

    openDemocracy contacted the Tunisian authorities for comment but had received no response by the time of publication.


    Activists such as Bouazzai, have been trying to understand what is driving this recent crackdown.

    “The Tunisian authorities regard any independent movement with significant popular support and mobilisation as a threat to their power,” he said, “even when that movement is devoted to supporting the Palestinian people.”

    Naouar has a history of political organising beyond Palestine solidarity. He was imprisoned as a student under former dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, later became secretary-general of the General Union of Tunisian Students and, shortly before his arrest this year, publicly criticised President Kais Saied.

    Human rights organisations have also raised wider concerns about pressure on Tunisia’s civil society, including the use of financial investigations, lengthy pre-trial detention and prosecutions of activists and NGO workers. Saied’s government has rejected accusations that the judiciary is being used against political opponents and says judicial proceedings are independent.

    That tension is particularly striking in Tunisia, where Palestine has historically commanded broad public support and Saied himself has repeatedly expressed support for the Palestinian cause.

    Bouazzi argues there is a growing gap between that rhetoric and the state’s treatment of independent organising around Palestine.

    He also believes external pressure and the wider geopolitical situation in the region may have played a role in the government’s changing approach, although he did not provide evidence of specific foreign intervention.

    For the movement campaigning outside the prison, the immediate demand remains straightforward: the four organisers should be released.

    “What we ask of our friends and of supporters of the Palestinian people around the world is to shed light on this injustice,” Bouazzi said. “International attention could create embarrassment and pressure on the Tunisian authorities and help secure the release of our detained comrades.”

    Article by Nandini Naira Archer republished from OpenDemocracy under under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

    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.
    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.
    Ed Miliband says that he and the Labour Party are full of shit criminalising people holding signs as terrorists despite anything he says.
    Ed Miliband says that he and the Labour Party are full of shit criminalising people holding signs as terrorists despite anything he says.
    UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham admits to blatently lying and engaging in deception to become leader of the UK Labour Party and Prime Minister.
    UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham admits to blatently lying and engaging in deception to become leader of the UK Labour Party and Prime Minister.
  • Just Stop Oil’s harsh sentences are the logical outcome of Britain’s authoritarian turn against protest

    Spread the love

    Graeme Hayes, Aston University and Steven Cammiss, University of Birmingham Published: July 19, 2024

    Lengthy prison sentences have been imposed on five Just Stop Oil activists for coordinating direct action on the M25, the main ring road around London. For a non-violent protest, there is no equivalent in modern times.

    The five years for Roger Hallam and four years for the remaining four: Daniel Shaw, Louise Lancaster, Cressida Gethin and Lucia Whittaker de Abreu, have been widely condemned as grossly disproportionate. According to one snap poll, 61% of the public consider the sentences too harsh.

    But nobody should be surprised: these sentences are a logical outcome of Britain’s authoritarian turn against protest over the past five years.

    Protest in England and Wales was previously dealt with by the courts according to what we call Hoffmann’s Bargain. This meant protesters should accept their guilt in court, but their conscientiousness – along with the wider importance of disruptive protest to democracy – would be rewarded with lenient sentences.

    This changed with the prosecution of the Stansted 15, who were charged and found guilty of terrorist-related offences for stopping a deportation flight in 2017. The 15 were sentenced to community service, fines, and for some, short suspended prison sentences. On appeal, the Court of Appeal threw out the charges in 2021, but at the same time hardened the general approach of the courts to protest, confirming that a key defence (known as necessity) was not available to protest defendants in court.

    Making it harder for activists to defend themselves

    Since then, three things have happened. First, other potential defences that protesters could rely on, including lawful excuse, have been systematically restricted by the Court of Appeal.

    Second, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has sought where possible to bring more serious charges against protesters than used to be the case. In this they have been encouraged by new legislation brought in by the last government, notably the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (2022) and the Public Order Act (2023).

    Third, judges have typically sought to control and reduce the time that defendants have in court to explain their motives to the jury, because – without a defence in law – the defendants’ arguments are, in legal terms, not relevant.

    We saw each of these dynamics in the Just Stop Oil “Conspiracy 5” trial. Before 2018, public nuisance itself was barely used for protest offences, but the CPS now regularly brings this charge against peaceful protesters. But the charge of a conspiracy to cause public nuisance, which these five defendants faced, is a further escalation as it treats protest movements as a criminal enterprise, and does not allow a lawful excuse defence. As a consequence, the stakes are higher and the outcomes more serious.

    In court, the defendants were unable to argue that they had a lawful excuse for their action (Hallam repeatedly tried to argue this in court, and was repeatedly shut down by the trial judge). Finally, although the defendants did manage to explain their motives to the jury, the jury had no opportunity to find them not guilty in law. Although juries still have the power to find defendants not guilty by making a moral rather than a legal decision, this is much harder and rarer.

    The result is that the first part of Hoffmann’s Bargain is being abandoned. With no recourse to a defence in law, protest defendants are now regularly being found guilty. But the second part of the bargain, leniency at sentencing, is increasingly being forgotten.

    A new benchmark

    In April 2023, Just Stop Oil activists Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were sentenced to three years and two years seven months in prison respectively after being convicted of public nuisance for disrupting the Dartford Crossing, a large bridge over the Thames to the east of London. Upheld by the Court of Appeal, these sentences have now become a benchmark.

    In the Conspiracy 5 case, the trial judge explicitly cited this benchmark as the basis for the sentences he imposed, and any appeal against them will have to reckon with the Court of Appeal’s determination that they are fair.

    This case brings into sharp focus two very contrasting visions of what a trial is, and what the criminal law is for. The courts are effectively treating protest trials as a legal flowchart, with a strict distinction between what is and what is not relevant on the shortest route to a verdict.

    But defendants often see the courts as a place where they can make urgent arguments about moral values and social justice. Rather than a public nuisance, they consider their actions a public service. By not allowing defendants to account for their actions properly, the courts create an artificial separation between law and politics, and diminish the democratic agency of juries.

    By imposing prison sentences on non-violent protesters, they impose authoritarian responses to pressing social problems.


    Imagine weekly climate newsletter

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 30,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


    Graeme Hayes, Reader in Political Sociology, Aston University and Steven Cammiss, Associate Professor, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Keir Starmer confirms that his government is cnutier than Suella Braverman on killing the right to protest.
    Keir Starmer confirms that his government is cnutier than Suella Braverman on killing the right to protest.
    Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
    Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.