UK police arrest Greta Thunberg under Terrorism Act

RadishRose

RadishRose

SF VIP
Location
Connecticut, USA
Richard Connor with AFP, AP, Reuters
UK police arrest Greta Thunberg under Terrorism Act – DW – 12/23/2025
75286421_1004.webp

British police arrested Swedish activist Greta Thunberg on Tuesday during a pro-Palestinian protest in London, according to UK-based campaign group Defend Our Juries.


The group said Thunberg was arrested under the Terrorism Act after holding a sign stating support for prisoners linked to Palestine Action, an organization that the British government has proscribed as a terrorist group.

Palestinian activist group Prisoners for Palestine said Thunberg had been holding a sign reading "I support the Palestine Action prisoners. I oppose genocide."


Several experts, including those commissioned by a UN body, have said that Israel's offensive in Gaza amounts to genocide. Israel vigorously denies the claim.
 

Why is the group Palestine Action banned?​

In June 2025, the UK Home Office announced plans to designate Palestine Action as a proscribed terrorist organization after activists broke into an airforce base.​
​
The group vandalized two Royal Air Force Airbus A330 MRTT refueling aircraft, spraying red paint into their engines and causing damage that the government said went beyond protest and posed a serious risk to national security.​
​
The terrorist organization designation makes it a criminal offense to support the group, display its symbols, or express support for it in public.​
​
The decision was controversial and has been challenged by civil liberties groups, who argue the group's actions constitute criminal damage rather than terrorism.​

Maybe the air force base should hire security guards. 🤣

As @Muskrat wrote above, it's dangerous when the government designates one group to be a "terrorist organization," especially in this case where the "terrorists" could better be described as vandals.
 

Calling it “just vandalism” ignores the point. Breaking into a military base and disabling aircraft is not speech, it is sabotage, and the law targets accountability for that act, not Greta’s opinions. When protest crosses into attacking critical infrastructure, the issue stops being who said it and starts being what was done and what is the law going to do about it.

Disagreeing with sabotage isn’t “hate.” It’s recognizing that once protest turns into breaking into military bases, the argument isn’t about feelings anymore, it’s about actions and consequences. Asking people to “take a breath” doesn’t change the facts. This wasn’t a knee-jerk reaction to an opinion, it was a response to domestic terrorist activity.

This isn’t about what bothers people, it’s about what crosses a legal line. Criticism isn’t hate, and accountability isn’t hysteria. The real issue is whether sabotaging military assets is protest or a crime. The law already answered that.

Terrorism is not defined by how angry someone is or whether you agree with their cause. Under UK law, it is defined by intent and method. When a group uses illegal force or serious damage against military or critical infrastructure to intimidate a government or influence policy, that meets the statutory definition of terrorism.

Breaking into an active military airbase and disabling refueling aircraft is not symbolic protest. It is sabotage of national defense assets, creates potential risk to personnel, and is intended to coerce government action. That is precisely the kind of conduct terrorism laws were written for.

Calling it “just vandalism” minimizes the act by focusing on damage instead of purpose. Spray paint on a wall is vandalism. Disabling military aircraft to advance a political cause crosses into terrorism under the law, regardless of motive or popularity.

That’s why the terrorist label applies here. Not because of opinions, not because of speech, and not because of who supports whom, but because the act itself satisfies the legal definition. Accountability follows actions, not feelings.

Those who disagree need to truly think about what they condone, support and would allow.

CONCISE EDITION for those who can't read several paragraph responses. Your choice:

Calling it “just vandalism” misses the point. Breaking into a military base and disabling aircraft is sabotage, not speech. Under UK law, terrorism is defined by intent and method, using illegal force against military or critical infrastructure to coerce government action. That standard is met here. This wasn’t a reaction to opinions or feelings, it was accountability for actions. Criticism isn’t hate, and enforcement isn’t hysteria. The law already drew the line. Those who disagree should think carefully about what they are willing to condone.
 
Just to be clear and from the OP linked article. Thunberg didn't break into a military base and sabotage aircraft but the organization she supports did and were legally deemed terrorist. Her support of that group and public display is the legal issue.

Why is the group Palestine Action banned?​


In June 2025, the UK Home Office announced plans to designate Palestine Action as a proscribed terrorist organization after activists broke into an airforce base.

The group vandalized two Royal Air Force Airbus A330 MRTT refueling aircraft, spraying red paint into their engines and causing damage that the government said went beyond protest and posed a serious risk to national security.

The terrorist organization designation makes it a criminal offense to support the group, display its symbols, or express support for it in public.

The decision was controversial and has been challenged by civil liberties groups, who argue the group's actions constitute criminal damage rather than terrorism.
 
Going on hunger strike is a form of blackmail and the government must not give in. Greta is an intelligent girl but misguided. She needs to consider carefully just what she gives her support to.
 
Breaking into a military base and disabling aircraft is sabotage with the intent to coerce government action. The law isn’t deciding whose cause is “just,” it’s addressing criminal acts that endanger lives and national security. The law labels terrorism by actions, not by slogans.

Greta Thunberg publicly supports those criminal activities of Palestine Action even though she isn't even a UK citizen. Foreign nationality doesn’t grant immunity. UK law applies to everyone on its soil, and foreign supporters often attract even extra attention because of potential international links, cross-border coordination, and immigration consequences. It’s not about opinion ... it’s about actions and security.
 
Disputing whether Israel’s actions meet the legal definition of genocide is a political and legal debate. Supporting a proscribed terrorist organization is a specific criminal offense under UK law. Flying a national flag is not the same as endorsing sabotage or terrorism. Laws apply to actions, not to which side of a conflict someone sympathizes with.
 
If she's supposedly so bright, ya think she would have known about Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Section 13 of the UK's Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offense to wear clothing or display an article in a public place in a way that creates a reasonable suspicion you are a member or supporter of a proscribed (banned) terrorist organization, covering real-world actions and online image sharing (Section 13A). This is a strict liability offense, meaning intent doesn't matter, just the suspicious display of items like flags or insignia, with penalties up to six months in prison and/or a fine
 
Trade said:
I don't know about her making money, but she is certainly right about Israel comminting genocide on the Palestinians. If we are going to arrest people for supporting terrorism then perhaps we should arrest people that display the Israeli flag.
Click to expand...
The term genocide was coined by a Jew to describe what the Germans did to the Jews during the holocaust . It also describes what the Gazan Muslims did to the Jews on Oct.7, 2023 hoping to eliminate Jews and Israel from the Middle East. Israel subsequently declared war on Gaza and the Gazans, but by no means has committed genocide on the Palestinians since Palestinians live in many Middle East countries, many of whom are doing a hearty trade business with Israel.
 
I have only read a little about this young lady. Her causes and philosphy don't interest me at all. What I have gleened from my reading is that she has a strange childhood and perhaps even some mental issues that have allowed her to grasp on some issues as her purpose in life. I may be completely wrong.
 
TabbyAnn said:
The term genocide was coined by a Jew to describe what the Germans did to the Jews during the holocaust . It also describes what the Gazan Muslims did to the Jews on Oct.7, 2023 hoping to eliminate Jews and Israel from the Middle East. Israel subsequently declared war on Gaza and the Gazans, but by no means has committed genocide on the Palestinians since Palestinians live in many Middle East countries, many of whom are doing a hearty trade business with Israel.
Click to expand...
Before the Oct. 7 attacked on Israel, Gaza had one of the fastest growing populations in the world. How could there be "genocide" when their population is exploding? That's the opposite of genocide!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top