One of the two comrades was charged with affixing placards to council property and both comrades were charged with depositing a paste table on the highway ‘without lawful authority or excuse.’ The solicitor for the defence, David Lees, was told upon entering court that one of the magistrates was a shareholder in Marks and Spencer’s and the chief magistrate was Jewish. We objected to the M&S shareholder being present, which resulted in their removal form court, but had no problem with the Jewish magistrate, for obvious reasons. The case opened with both solicitors giving definitions of ‘affixed’, which isn’t defined in the highways act. Andrew Butcher, licensing officer, was giving evidence for the prosecution and testified that the placards were ‘draped’. Lees stated that, for the defendants to be found guilty of depositing a table on the highway, the magistrates would have to find that the table was an interruption and an unreasonable one. When one of the defendants was giving evidence, he described the reasons for the M&S picket and stated that it was in solidarity with Palestine and that the people on the picket were asking people to boycott Israeli goods and to isolate the Zionist State. The chief magistrate was shaking his head throughout this and showed his sympathy towards the Zionist cause. The prosecution picked up on this and asked some of the same questions agin when the other comrade was giving evidence, this was obviously to gain more sympathy from the magistrate. Butcher was asked if any member of the public had ever complained about being ‘interrupted’ by the paste table, he testified that they hadn’t. Lees then asked Butcher if M&S had ever complained to the council about the table. Butcher said that M&S had complained, and, when Lees asked if M&S complaint had been passed onto him, the prosecution objected and the chief magistrate ruled that the question was not relevant and Butcher did not have to answer. Lees then explained that he was trying to figure out exactly whom the table was an interruption to. The question was still ruled irrelevant. The prosecution argued that a table was not needed for an effective picket because we could carry all of our leaflets on us. It was also suggested that we all wear placards instead of ‘affixing them to council property’. The prosecution, from the suggestions of Andrew Butcher, even went as far as to say that the placards were stopping people from being able to lean on the wall! The verdict came back as guilty for both comrades for depositing a table on the highway. The reason for this was because they saw it as unreasonable use because we could carry our literature and did not need a table. The verdict came back as guilty for affixing the placards based on a definition of affixed with the use of words such as ‘saddle’. These reasons are clearly unfounded and were thought up to excuse the fact that the guilty verdict is an attack on the right to protest, particularly on the streets of Manchester. This case also brings to light, the ignorance and racism in our ‘justice’ system and the constant support it gives to the racist, Zionist state of Israel.
SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO PROTEST!
JOIN THE WEEKLY PICKETS OF M&S!
VICTORY TO THE INTIFADA!
***The picket is every Saturday 12-3 on Market Street, Manchester***
Comments
Hide the following 20 comments
More anti-Jewish stories on Indymedia
30.03.2004 17:36
You're not fooling anyone, your bias is clear, your bigotry is clear, your racism is clear.
Go join the BNP where you and your kind belong
David
shocking
30.03.2004 18:06
pete
david - shut up
30.03.2004 18:09
It is about human rights being removed. The right to freedom of expression and the right to assembly and also the right to education and information. Without these rights we lose the ability to protest. That might be ok for some people who don't care what goes on around them but some of us who find what happens right under our noses express our anger by doing such pickets.
Personally, as stated in a previous comment, i think Religion should be abolished as it is seemingly pointless. There is no proof of any god or higher being. So why should we fight over which religion is right? When no-one knows which one is right and can't find out.
commenter
Obvious reasons
30.03.2004 18:40
The last piece I read covering a trial in which the defendants claimed 'Zionist' and 'Jew' bias was by a white supremacist who'd been put on trial for distributing race hate leaflets in Hull. He also decided he couldn't object 'for obvious reasons'.
In that case the 'obvious reason' was that objecting would prove, prima facie, that he was a Jew hating nazi bigot.
Presumably this is the 'obvious reason' here?
Marco
What?
30.03.2004 19:29
It never ceases to amaze me that people cannot tell the difference between criticism of the state of Israel and something that is allegedly "Clearly anti semitic".
IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE AGAINST THE REAL RACISM OF ISRAEL WITHOUT BEING ANTI JEWISH. Get it?
I AM NOT ANTI JEWISH...AND...I THINK THE TEATMENT OF THE PALESTINIANS BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ARMY OF ISRAEL IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
Lots of others feel the same way. Is it really that hard to understand?
One of many
anti-semitic
30.03.2004 19:50
How did Heather Keating conclude the magistrate’s sympathies for Zionism?
Answer: the possibility that the magistrate was Jewish, and the shaking of his head during the proceedings.
Wow what a conclusion Heather Keating comes to, that “our justice system and the constant support it gives to the racist, Zionist state of Israel”
Conclusion: pure anti Semitism.
Furthermore, it is not for someone who is not Jewish to decide when something is or isn’t anti-Semitic in cases such as these. There was no reason why Heather Keating mentioned the religion of the magistrate in this case.
Disgusting
jewboy
hmmm
30.03.2004 20:10
FAIR PLAY, NOT ANTISEMETIC AT ALL
The chief magistrate was shaking his head throughout this...
FACT
....and showed his sympathy towards the Zionist cause.
SUPPOSITION
----------
the post is about the legal arguement about a bloody table - the judge is an extra detail.
no one was using the phrase jew judge.
no one was claiming anything anti-semetic.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH REAL ANTI-SEMETIC RUBBISH IS HIDDEN FROM THE INDYMEDIA NEWSWIRE EVERY MONTH?
the point being is that people do not tolerate anti-semetic stuff here.
at least the comment facility allows people to express their views.
-
david
30.03.2004 20:24
The only mention of Judaism in the article is this
'no problem with the Jewish magistrate, for obvious reasons.'
This is clearly not anti-jewish, or anti-semetic,
but simply and justifiably anti racist-zionist-israeli government.
*
edit please
30.03.2004 20:28
If the magistrate was black or asian, would his ethnicity or religion have been stated? If so it would have been highly inappropriate. So why mention the supposition that the judge in this case was Jewish and a zionist too?
The article could have stated its (weak) claims without the mentioning of the religion of the magistrate. The mentioning of his religion leads to the conclusion that the judge was bias because of his jewishness, something that the article gives no evidence of. This is in contrast to the author's claim that "we had no problem with the Jewish magistrate, for obvious reasons."
In fairness i believe that the article should have the mentioning of the Magistrate's religious background removed otherwise there will be many readers who will feel offended.
Guy
Asterisk seems to have a reading problem.
30.03.2004 21:45
Line 3: "the chief magistrate was Jewish."
Line 4: "the Jewish magistrate"
Then consider descriptions of the "the Jewish magistrate"
Line 9: "The chief magistrate ... showed his sympathy towards the Zionist cause."
And what does the "sympathy" of "the Jewish magistrate" prove?
Lines 21-22: "ignorance and racism in our ‘justice’ system and the constant support it gives to the racist, Zionist state of Israel."
Marco
ITS OFFICIAL
30.03.2004 21:52
*
actually its about quangos
30.03.2004 23:22
So, when it comes to a question about annoying people picketing outside m & s, what does M & s do?? It calls in its friends to prosecute these people. and they are found guilty and slapped with a fine.
do you want to live in this manchester. whatever you think about what m & s picket were protesting about, the point is also that the city is owned by corporations, who are part of various groups and organisations and who are also (shock, horror) magistrates sometimes. justice for who?
what kind of city do you want to live in.
heather
NOT anti-semitic
31.03.2004 04:00
They have read the propaganda manual, and know that they must, regardless of how stupid it makes them look by having to pretend to be able to understand something so simple and direct.
Its the simple difference between disliking the policies of a government, and disliking a religious or racial group. How hard is that ?
I don't see the original posting as anti-semitic, though it is trying to walk a tricky line.
The M&S shareholder - fine to mention that - they objected to him because he had a conflict of interest, and was likely to have zionist bias.
The Jewish magistrate. Why mention his religion ? Presumably because they wanted to emphasise that they themselves do NOT assume that every jew is a zionist. They know that millions are not. That there is huge internal opposition to Israel's warcrimes - many brave "refuseniks".
But, in exactly the SAME way as if he had been a non-jew, they WERE looking for signs of pro-Israeli bias. They described what they thought were relevant indications. Just as animal rights activists on trial might scrutinise the attitude of the judge, to see if he, too, was looking only at the legal issues, or improperly involving more personal responses.
Don't you see, they weren't afraid to post what they felt, ie they didn't refraining (because he was a jew) from commenting on his attitude, exactly as they would have done on anybody else.
If they made a mistake, it was in wanting to point out to their readers that they DIDN'T ASSUME that a jew was anti-zionist without waiting to see his actual behaviour, exactly like anyone else. When that behaviour appeared, they commented on it.
Is it anti-semitic to treat jewish people exactly the same as non-jewish people ?
Many posters here seem to think so.
panther
Yeah right
31.03.2004 09:05
Thanks for listening.
ZZ
Homepage: http://www.agp.org
of course
31.03.2004 10:07
The bias on Indymedia from some contributors is obvious for all to see and talk of pro Jewish -anti Israel just doesn't cut it.
You are racist bigots and we see you through your prejudice.
David
The Zionist Cause!!??
31.03.2004 12:28
The author uses the ususal propagandistic words like Zionist State of Israel and the racist state of Israel to support his ideas.
I think it is extremely dangerous to put it into such simple forms. WE SHOULDN't FORGET WHAT HAPPENED IN TH PAST. ANY DEBATE THAT DOESN'T RESPECT ISRAEL'S RIGHT AS A STATE DOES NOT DESERVE IT TO BE CALLED A CONSTRUCTIVE ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE CRISIS.
Especially not when the author sympathises with the Intifada. There aren't just a bunch of stone throwing kids involved. There are enough terrorist groups who use the INTIFADA CAUSE to kill as many innocent people in Israel as possible. IS THAT ANY BETTER???
We should rather try to condemn violence, hatred. On both sides.
The author of the article simply doesn't want to do so. He rather prefers to contribute to the ususal blaming of the other side!!!
Johannes Schneider
e-mail: Johannes_Camire@hotmail.com
anyone know what happened today at the council meeting?
31.03.2004 18:12
I know a motion was being debated about the treatment of protesters in manchester and i'd like to know what happened. (i'll find out anyway, but it'd be good if people who were there would put it up publically - i think its important - know your enemy and all that)
thats if we can tear ourselves away from the usual stuff for a couple of minutes maybe...
heather
Johannes
31.03.2004 18:15
but its not good enough to just blandly condemn it without trying to figure out
why it takes place and this is clearly in many eyes because of the historical crimes
of those who established and continue to govern the state of israel with such brutality.
2. Its also a cheap trick to accuse all those who question Israel's legitimacy
of being anti semites. This equates the state of israel with Judaism as a whole and
despite wishfull thinking on your part not everyone-equates the jews with israel
(this i think would actually be anti-semitic and anti-jewish).
*
Have I missed something Johannes?
02.04.2004 10:22
Firstly, are you saying that Israel is not a Zionist state?
Secondly, the U.S. and Israeli governments refer to Israel as a Jewish State. As Judaism is primarily a racially defined religion, is it not fair to refer to Israel as a racist state?
Pat
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT!
02.04.2004 12:39
RCG/FRFI MEMBER
Homepage: http://www.manchesterfrfi.5u.com