#propalestine — Public Fediverse posts

#SilencingDissent: The Crackdown on #PeacefulProtest in #Europe

In our recently published Rule of Law report, Liberties’ members reported an increase in restrictions on the right to peaceful protest in all countries.

by Flore du Teilleul
April 10, 2025

"The right to peaceful protest is essential to our democracies, allowing people to come together with a unified voice to support or oppose key issues. It serves as a powerful mechanism for individuals to hold their governments to account and is often the last resort when prior messages go unheard. However, politicians often perceive this right as a threat, especially when force of numbers demonstrates support for an issue.

"In our recently published Rule of Law report, Liberties’ members reported an increase in restrictions on the right to peaceful protest in all countries - from bans on individual protests to the disproportionate use of force by the police and legislative changes. A widespread trend emerged of restricted #ProPalestine protests and #EnvironmentalDefenders receiving particularly harsh penalties.

Bans on Protests

"Restrictions on various protest movements justified on public safety grounds were documented in many member states. In #Germany, the Berlin Assembly Authorities implemented a temporary blanket ban targeting pro-Palestine demonstrations. Initially, the ban targeted celebrations of the mass murder and pro-Hamas demonstrations but later extended to all pro-Palestinian protests. Similarly, in #Latvia, an unregistered #FreePalestine movement protest was banned after an assessment by the state security service that the event would, among other risks, harm the country’s international interests.

"The #Estonian police banned a protest in support of Palestinians, which was later declared unlawful by the administrative court. In #Hungary, Prime Minister #ViktorOrbán publicly prejudiced support for Palestinians by linking it with #terrorism, equating solidarity with civilians victims to threats to the public order. As the fifteen attempts to organise protests were successively banned, the government and the Prime Minister re-asserted their power by deciding what can be demonstrated for, namely, topics in line with their political interests."

Read more:
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/rule-of-law-2025-protests/45384

#Sweden #Belgium #Netherlands #Estonia #ExtinctionRebellion #EnvironmentalDefenders #CriminalizingProtest #EnvironmentalActivists #FreePalestine #GazaGenocide #HumanRights #RightToProtest #ACAB #Europe #WorldPol #EuroPol

#SilencingDissent: The #Crackdown on #PeacefulProtest in #Europe

In our recently published Rule of Law report, Liberties’ members reported an increase in restrictions on the right to peaceful protest in all countries.

by Flore du Teilleul
April 10, 2025

Excerpt:
"The right to peaceful protest is essential to our democracies, allowing people to come together with a unified voice to support or oppose key issues. It serves as a powerful mechanism for individuals to hold their governments to account and is often the last resort when prior messages go unheard. However, politicians often perceive this right as a threat, especially when force of numbers demonstrates support for an issue.

"In our recently published Rule of Law report, Liberties’ members reported an increase in restrictions on the right to peaceful protest in all countries - from bans on individual protests to the disproportionate use of force by the police and legislative changes. A widespread trend emerged of restricted #ProPalestine protests and #EnvironmentalDefenders receiving particularly harsh penalties.

Bans on Protests

"Restrictions on various protest movements justified on public safety grounds were documented in many member states. In #Germany, the Berlin Assembly Authorities implemented a temporary blanket ban targeting pro-Palestine demonstrations. Initially, the ban targeted celebrations of the mass murder and pro-Hamas demonstrations but later extended to all pro-Palestinian protests. Similarly, in #Latvia, an unregistered #FreePalestine movement protest was banned after an assessment by the state security service that the event would, among other risks, harm the country’s international interests.

"The Estonian police banned a protest in support of #Palestinians, which was later declared unlawful by the administrative court. In #Hungary, Prime Minister #ViktorOrbán publicly prejudiced support for Palestinians by linking it with terrorism, equating solidarity with civilians victims to threats to the public order. As the fifteen attempts to organise protests were successively banned, the government and the Prime Minister re-asserted their power by deciding what can be demonstrated for, namely, topics in line with their political interests. Following the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, the Hungarian government has repeatedly declared and extended the state of danger, allowing for the adoption of emergency decrees restricting, among other rights, the freedom to assemble. Both the Hungarian Supreme Court and Constitutional Court upheld the protest bans on the basis of public safety and security, legalising the practice of police-authorised restrictions in times of conflict.

"Further restrictions, including bans on #slogans and #signs during #demonstrations, sought to criminalise protesters. Several individuals were arrested or fined for displaying signs or slogans related to Palestine. In #Belgium, activists faced administrative sanctions for carrying a #PalestinianFlag or the #keffiyeh. Similarly, in the #Netherlands, attendees of an #ExtinctionRebellion demonstration were prohibited from mentioning the conflict in the Middle East. The enforcement of restrictions went as far as arrests, as Croatian activists were charged with misdemeanor after projecting a message in support of Palestine on a building across from the Israeli Embassy in Zagreb.

"In Hungary, a demonstrator faced criminal charges after wearing a gas mask and removing it after being asked by the police. In a worrying trend of criminalising protest activities, several activists were arrested and charged with sedition before an Extinction Rebellion demonstration in the Netherlands.

Disproportionate use of force by the police

"The criminalisation of environmental and pro-Palestine protesters was worsened by the violent repression of the police through excessive use of force. This was particularly notable in Sweden, where student encampments in support of Palestinians were forcibly displaced and participants were charged with criminal offenses. #PainGrips, water guns and #WaterCannons were used against environmental activists, pro-Palestinian and anti-immigration demonstrators in Germany, the #Netherlands and #Ireland.

"Environmental activists faced similar fates, The NGO ‘#FranceNatureEnvironnement’ reported concerns to the UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders following the violent repression of protesters during a demonstration against the A69 highway. In #Sweden, a woman was dismissed from her job at the Swedish Energy Agency for participating in an environmental demonstration and a growing number of #EcoActivists were fined for participating in peaceful protests."

Read more:
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/rule-of-law-2025-protests/45384

#RightToProtest #SilencingDissent #AntiProtestLaws #EuropeanLaws #Croatia #ACAB #CriminalizingDissent #CriminalizingProtest #FreePalestine #FreeGaza #EnvironmentalProtests #EnvironmentalActivists

State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #NorthCarolina

HB 237: Heightened penalties for street #protesters and #MaskedProtesters

Increases penalties for protesters who block #traffic and for masked protesters who break any law. The law makes it a Class A1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 150 days in jail and a fine, to willfully impede traffic while participating in a demonstration on a street or highway. Second and subsequent offenses would be a Class H felony, punishable by up to 25 months in prison. Under the law, “organizers” of street protests can be held civilly liable for any injury resulting from delays caused by the obstruction of an emergency vehicle. The law does not define “organizer,” such that anyone involved in the planning of a protest might be covered, nor does it require that the “organizer” have any intent or knowledge that an emergency vehicle would be obstructed. Additionally, the law narrows the health-related exception to North Carolina’s ban on wearing masks in public, requiring that a mask worn for health or safety reasons must be a “medical or surgical grade” mask worn “to prevent[] the spread of contagious disease.” The law broadens the authority of law enforcement and third parties to require someone to remove their masks in such cases. Under the law, someone convicted of any offense, including nonviolent protest-related offenses, can face steeper punishment if they were wearing a mask or other face covering at the time, regardless of the reason for doing so. The bill’s sponsor cited recent #ProPalestine protests on college campuses, in which some protesters have worn masks.

Full text of bill:
https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/h237

Status: enacted

Introduced 7 May 2024; Approved by Senate 15 May 2024; Approved by House 11 June 2024; Vetoed by Governor Cooper 21 June 2024; Veto overridden 27 June 2024

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Face Covering, Traffic Interference

HB 40: HEIGHTENED PENALTIES FOR "RIOT" AND RELATED OFFENSES

Increases the penalty for an individual who "incites or urges another to engage in a riot," if a riot occurs and results in $1,500 of property damage or injury. In such a case, the individual is guilty of a Class E felony, punishable by more than two years in prison, even if they did not personally cause any damage or injury. Under the law, an individual convicted of "riot" or incitement offenses is also civilly liable to anyone whose property or person was damaged by the riot, in the amount of three times the actual damage in addition to court costs and attorney’s fees. Preexisting North Carolina law defines riot to include a "public disturbance" by a group of three or more people that presents an "imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct," resulting in a "clear and present danger" of property damage or injury. Under this definition, no violence or damage need occur for participants in a gathering to be arrested for and charged with "riot." While the new law would add a limitation requiring an “overt act” in order for someone to be convicted of a #riot or incitement to riot offense, that requirement could be read broadly to include #PeacefulChanting or #marching with a crowd that is deemed to be a “riot.” Finally, the law requires that a judge, rather than another judicial official, determine the pretrial release of an individual charged with a riot offense. The judge may hold the individual for 24 hours, and may require that they stay away from places where the "riot" occurred. The text of HB 40 is nearly identical to the amended version of HB 805 that passed both the North Carolina House and Senate in 2021 before being vetoed by the Governor.

Full text of bill:
https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/h40

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Feb 2023; Approved by House 8 February 2023; Approved by Senate 9 March 2023; Became law without Governor Cooper's signature 21 March 2023

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Riot

SB 58: New penalties for protests near #pipelines

Introduces new potential criminal penalties and civil liability for peaceful protests near existing and planned pipelines and other energy infrastructure. The enacted version of the law makes it a Class C felony offense to knowingly and willfully “obstruct, impede, or impair” or “attempt to obstruct, impede, or impair” the services of an energy facility. The law defines “energy facility” to include any facility involved in the transmission of “electricity, fuel, or another form or source of energy,” including facilities that are under construction or otherwise not functioning. As such, a group of people protesting the construction of a fossil fuel pipeline could face more than 15 years in prison and a mandatory $250,000 fine if they impede or impair the construction of a pipeline, for instance by blocking workers’ access to the pipeline construction site. Under the law, such protesters, along with anyone who “aides or abets, solicits, conspires, or lends material support” to their act of impeding construction could also be sued in civil court by someone whose property was damaged, for an amount equivalent to three times the actual damage as well as court costs and attorneys' fees.

Full text of bill:
https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/S58

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Feb 2023; Approved by Senate 14 March 2023; Approved by House 14 June 2023; Signed by Governor Cooper 19 June 2023

Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #Infrastructure

SB 300: Heightened penalties for "riot"

**Note: This bill was later amended to remove all riot provisions except the increased penalties** Would increase the penalty for engaging in a "riot," from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class H felony, punishable by 25 months in prison. If the "riot" resulted in property damage of over $1,500, or serious injury, anyone deemed to have engaged in the "riot" (regardless of their role in the damage or injury) could be convicted of a Class G felony, punishable by 31 months in prison. The bill would not alter North Carolina's broad definition of "riot," which does not require any actual violence or destructive activity. Under the bill, peaceful protesters in a group of three or more who present an "imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct" that "creates a clear and present danger" of property damage or injury could face felony convictions and lengthy prison sentences. Note: A later amendment eliminated the proposed increase in penalty for engaging in a "riot." It also eliminated the proposal to make it a Class G felony for engaging in a riot that resulted in property damage over $1,500 or serious bodily injury. Instead, it replaced that proposal by making it a Class G felony if during the course of a riot a person caused over $1,500 in property damage or a Class F felony if the person during the course of a riot caused serious bodily injury or brandished a dangerous weapon or substance. It also clarified that "mere presence alone without an overt act" is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of rioting. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 15 Mar 2021; Approved by Senate 12 May 2021; Approved by House 18 August 2021; Signed by Governor Cooper 2 September 2021

Issue(s): Riot

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #MaskedProtesters #AntiMaskLaws #SurveillanceState #PipelineProtests