分类： politics

A logistical and procedural crisis descended on London’s Westminster Crown Court Thursday, as more than 1,500 defendants facing terrorism-connected charges related to pro-Palestine protests were summoned for hearings amid conflicting guidance, widespread confusion, and widespread criticism of the UK government’s ban on the direct action group Palestine Action.

The chaos unfolded after hundreds of defendants had already received formal notifications that their trials, originally scheduled for July 30, would be adjourned until October. Yet despite the adjournment notices, court records published Wednesday listed all 1,579 cases for hearing on July 30 at Westminster Crown Court, leaving defendants with contradictory instructions about whether they were required to attend. One letter obtained by independent news outlet Middle East Eye simultaneously ordered a recipient to “must attend” the July 30 hearing, then immediately instructed them “Please do not attend court” on that same date.

Defend Our Juries (DOJ), a campaign group supporting the defendants, argues that this systemic confusion is a direct symptom of the disorder created by the government’s 2025 proscription of Palestine Action, which has pushed the UK’s criminal justice system into a state of “complete meltdown”. In a parallel development Thursday, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Palestine Action could legally challenge the ban, which was first implemented by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration in July 2025. Since the proscription took effect, thousands of people have been arrested over the past year, most simply for holding placards or wearing clothing expressing solidarity with the group.

Court records obtained by Middle East Eye show a printed list of roughly 2,000 cases spanning 82 pages pulled from the CourtServe listings service, with multiple defendants listed multiple times under different spelling variations of their names. When dozens of defendants traveled to London to attend their scheduled hearings Thursday, they wandered the court grounds with their conflicting notices, receiving inconsistent explanations from court staff. One defendant reported her hearing was assigned to a courtroom that does not exist at the Westminster complex. Upon arrival, attendees were generic “To Whomever It May Concern” leaflets stating all cases had been adjourned to October 26 for an administrative directions hearing, and that no attendance was required.

“That is crazy. That’s not how the court system is meant to work,” said Tim Crosland, a former government lawyer representing the defendants. “What a court normally does is send a clear letter to every person with a hearing, telling them exactly when and where to appear. That’s basic court communication, not generic flyers handed out to random people at the door. If you’re facing a terrorism charge, you have a right to be present for your case — you don’t want prosecutors discussing the future of your case without you there. It looks like the court is trying to avoid the logistical problem of hundreds of people arriving at once by turning the entire process into a mass-produced sausage machine, with no respect for individual cases.”

Middle East Eye reached out to the Crown Prosecution Service for comment ahead of publication, but received no response. Late Wednesday, London’s Metropolitan Police issued a public statement dismissing a planned protest outside the court as “nonsensical”, claiming no Palestine Action-related hearings would take place Thursday. In response, DOJ sent a formal letter to the Met demanding clarity on the source of the police’s information, arguing that “if court hearings have been postponed, that fact should be communicated by the court to the parties directly, not via a police statement the evening before the hearing.”

Multiple defendants who spoke to Middle East Eye, many of whom requested anonymity for legal reasons, described the deep disruption the charges and procedural chaos have caused to their daily lives. Steve, who traveled from Norwich for an 11 a.m. hearing, only to be told he did not need to attend, said: “That’s very polite of them, but I can’t imagine any other circumstance where they charge you with a crime — especially terrorism — and just tell you not to bother showing up.” Another defendant, Tony, said he had received multiple overlapping notices that said “the defendant need not come to court but they may do so if desired.” He added: “If you’re going to call me a terrorist, at least treat me like one and let me attend my own hearing.” Tony explained that the pending terrorism charge already bars him from traveling to the U.S. to visit family, and has damaged his ability to secure new contracts as a self-employed contractor.

Bernie and Heather traveled eight hours from mid-Wales to attend their hearings, after booking accommodation and receiving an initial adjournment notice, only to see their names reappear on the final court listing Wednesday. Marji, a 69-year-old DOJ spokesperson who traveled two hours from Chichester, told reporters she was listed for three separate hearings under two different spellings of her name, and held a court letter that simultaneously required her attendance on July 30 and forbade it. “I am legally entitled to attend every one of my hearings,” she said. “They say there is a hearing listed, they say I have a right to speak at every hearing, but they won’t let us in. Is this a secret court?” Miriam, a self-represented defendant from east London, faces five separate charges under the Terrorism Act, only received adjournment notices for three, and saw four of her five cases listed for Thursday. “I came because it’s all unclear, but also because I strongly object to the adjournment,” she said. “I don’t have a lawyer, I’m representing myself, so I need to be here in person to follow what’s happening.”

Clive Dolphin, a DOJ spokesperson, called the court’s mass handling of the cases unlawful. “There has been no clear individual communication to defendants. The court seems to be treating this as a single block booking, but that is not how justice works. All these cases are different, they involve different people in different circumstances. Under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, an offense is only committed if the display of support arouses reasonable suspicion of membership — the circumstances of one person holding a sign are not the same as another. You cannot round up hundreds of people, treat them all as a single group, and arbitrarily move their hearings en masse. That is not how the justice system is supposed to operate.”

Outside the court, police arrested 77 people after around 200 protesters staged a sit-in, where they planned to read statements supporting Palestine Action, a act that can carry charges under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act — a more severe offense than the Section 13 charges most defendants face, that carries a maximum 14-year custodial sentence for inviting support for a proscribed organization. The Metropolitan Police confirmed most arrests were for expressing support for a proscribed organization, with four additional arrests for encouraging criminal offending. DOJ reported that two people were arrested a day early simply for setting up a podium for speakers, and that police were arresting people based solely on proximity to the protest, even if they had not expressed support for Palestine Action.

Among those arrested was Sir Jonathan Porritt, former director of Friends of the Earth and former Green Party co-chair. In footage shared on social media platform X, Porritt can be heard saying as he is escorted away by officers: “I am a supporter of Palestine Action. Trying to save lives is not terrorism. Exposing this government’s complicity in genocide is not terrorism.”

Human rights organizations have sharply condemned the use of counterterrorism legislation against peaceful protesters. Thomas Bell, acting UK director at Human Rights Watch, said: “Using terrorism legislation to arrest people, many of them older, just for peacefully supporting a direct-action protest group, is making a mockery of justice. Using counterterror powers to suppress dissent goes against core democratic values, and harms freedom of expression and assembly in this country. Prime Minister Andy Burnham must order a full reset. The government needs to end the misuse of terrorism powers and re-examine the pile of hardline anti-protest laws passed in recent years.”

Raised by illiterate farmworking parents in northern India who revered knowledge above all else, 24-year-old law student Mohammad Junaid grew up ingrained with one core belief: education is the only irreversible gift that can rewrite a person’s destiny. What he never anticipated, however, was that this same belief would lead him to the center of one of India’s largest recent student-led protests, and ultimately to the steps of the Supreme Court to challenge alleged police mistreatment.

When the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) issued a call in June for students to gather at Delhi’s iconic Jantar Mantar to demand accountability for widespread irregularities in a critical national medical entrance examination, Junaid packed only a small bag, planning to attend for just 24 hours. He ended up staying six weeks, evolving from a casual participant to one of the protest movement’s most visible and indispensable volunteers. Drawing on organizational experience he gained during the 2020 Indian farmers’ protests, Junaid stepped in to bring structure to the grassroots campaign when the first wave of demonstrators decided to camp indefinitely at the protest site with almost no basic supplies.

From sourcing drinking water and arranging meals to securing blankets and shelter for exhausted participants, Junaid became the go-to coordinator for all incoming donations and logistics. As local communities stepped up to support the movement—farmers bringing fresh vegetables, local gurdwaras supplying daily cooked meals, and ordinary citizens dropping off medicine, water and fruit—volunteers and organizers alike automatically directed all resources to him. The work was grueling, with Junaid averaging only a few hours of sleep a night, but it was the stories of affected families that cemented his commitment. He met parents who had taken crippling loans to pay for exam coaching, and one couple who distributed food to protesters on what would have been their daughter’s birthday; she had died by suicide after the exam paper was leaked, a tragedy that left Junaid certain the fight was bigger than any individual. The experience transformed his life trajectory: where he once never imagined himself as an activist, he now says he will spend his life fighting for equitable, transparent education.

Tensions escalated on 20 July, when thousands of protesters defied a police ban to march toward India’s parliament. Security forces responded with tear gas, baton charges, and mass detentions. Junaid spent hours tending to injured demonstrators, locating missing students, and helping frightened participants return to the protest camp. The violence of that day, he says, broke something inside him, and confirmed he could not step away from the movement. Five days later, after India’s education minister stepped down, CJP leaders declared victory and called off the protest, with most volunteers preparing to return home. Junaid’s path took a different turn.

Alleging that he was unlawfully detained by police just hours before the protest officially wrapped up, Junaid has filed a petition with India’s Supreme Court. In his claim, Junaid says he was taken into custody after leaving a hospital where he had sought treatment for a stray dog bite. He was held overnight for extensive questioning about his protest role, and alleges he was blindfolded while being transported to the police station. The petition further claims authorities targeted his family: his father was picked up for questioning from the family’s small Ghaziabad farm on 23 July, and police searched the family home the following day, damaging furniture and demanding identification and bank details for all extended family members. Ghaziabad Police have only confirmed that they questioned Junaid’s father, and have denied any misconduct. Delhi Police has not responded to requests for comment on Junaid’s allegations.

Junaid’s case has drawn sharp condemnation from opposition politicians and civil liberties organizations, with CJP leaders accusing authorities of a targeted crackdown on protest volunteers. His petition is one of multiple claims of unlawful detention amid broader allegations of a widespread police crackdown on demonstrators across Delhi and other Indian states. The Supreme Court has already ordered authorities to refrain from taking coercive action against protesters with no prior criminal record while the main case is heard, and CJP has threatened to resume mass protests if all pending cases against demonstrators are not withdrawn. Junaid’s petition has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

In the aftermath of his detention, a video of Junaid breaking down during an interview went viral on Indian social media, alongside clips of supporters celebrating the protest’s initial victory. Junaid says the experience has left him questioning whether his Muslim identity played a role in his targeting—something he has no concrete evidence to prove, but that has lingered in his mind. Throughout the protest, he says, religious identity was never a topic of conversation: participants saw each other only as students and activists fighting for a shared cause. The question of religious profiling comes amid longstanding criticism from rights groups and opposition parties that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has overseen growing marginalization of India’s Muslim community, the country’s largest religious minority. Modi’s administration has repeatedly rejected these accusations.

When Junaid returned home after his release, his parents—who spent decades working their small plot of land to give their son an education—urged him to step away from the movement, afraid that his activism would bring more trouble. But for Junaid, the confrontation with authorities has only strengthened his resolve. He describes the experience as a small sacrifice for the larger fight for fair education and accountability, and says if protesters return to the streets, he will be right there with them.

A major political dispute has erupted between the UK’s largest umbrella body for Muslim communities and the Andy Burnham-led government, after a senior cabinet minister repeated longstanding but unproven allegations to justify the administration’s refusal to work with the group.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which counts more than 500 affiliated Muslim organizations across the country, has publicly condemned Security Minister Dan Jarvis for parroting an old, unevidenced claim that the group has violated British fundamental values without offering concrete specifics. The controversy was sparked earlier this month, when Conservative MP David Simmonds submitted a parliamentary question asking the government to explain its refusal to engage with four Muslim organizations, including the MCB. In a written response published Tuesday, Jarvis reaffirmed the government’s position, stating that the administration has chosen to cut ties with groups that have adopted stances contradicting core UK values and have not formally withdrawn those positions.

Within days, the MCB hit back with an open letter to Jarvis, obtained by Middle East Eye (MEE), pointing out that the same vague allegation was first made by former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in February 2024. The organization is demanding that Jarvis outline exactly which values the MCB has supposedly contradicted, arguing that a government cannot maintain a policy of non-engagement based on abstract, unspecified claims. The letter also notes a glaring contradiction in the current government’s stance: multiple senior figures in the current administration, including Prime Minister Andy Burnham himself, Defence Secretary, and Equalities Minister, have held formal and informal engagement with the MCB over the course of their political careers.

Burnham, who held engagement with the MCB when he served in the shadow cabinet in 2015, has a long public record of open dialogue with Muslim communities across the UK, a track record the MCB says it hopes he will maintain now that he holds office in Downing Street. “Prime Minister Burnham has a strong record of engaging honestly with communities across this country, and we hope that record continues now that he is in Downing Street,” the organization stated.

The MCB’s challenge comes on the heels of a revealing MEE investigation published earlier this week, which found that no official written records of a formal non-engagement policy with the MCB actually exist. Multiple government departments, including the communities ministry, Home Office, and Cabinet Office, all refused to release any documentation related to the policy in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. When MEE followed up for clarification on the scope and justification of the non-engagement rule, a spokesperson for the Office for Equality and Opportunity only confirmed the policy remains in place but offered no further details.

Mustafa al-Dabbagh, assistant secretary general of the MCB, told MEE that the so-called non-engagement policy is nothing more than an outdated smear that was resolved more than a decade ago. The roots of the boycott stretch back to 2009, when Gordon Brown’s Labour government briefly cut ties with the MCB after its deputy secretary general Daud Abdullah signed the Istanbul Declaration. The government claimed the document called for attacks on Royal Navy vessels enforcing an arms blockade off Gaza, a claim Abdullah repeatedly denied. The MCB quickly clarified that Abdullah had signed the declaration in a strictly personal capacity, after which Abdullah resigned and the 2010 Labour government restored formal engagement. Subsequent coalition and Conservative governments maintained ministerial contact until 2015, and civil servants continued meetings with the MCB until 2020.

It was in 2020 that the MCB published a high-profile dossier documenting hundreds of alleged cases of Islamophobia within the Conservative Party, including among sitting MPs, councillors, and Downing Street advisers. Shortly after that release, civil service engagement was halted, and the Conservative government implemented a full boycott. When Starmer’s Labour Party took power in 2024, the new administration retained the boycott, a decision the MCB says is unjustified given the issue that sparked the original boycott was resolved in 2010.

al-Dabbagh accused Jarvis of misleading Parliament by repeating the discredited smear. “This so-called policy of non-engagement is a relic of the past, built on a smear that has since been proven false, and the Labour government of the day accepted as much in 2010, restoring engagement,” he said. “Our door remains open to all who work for the good of Britain.”

In its formal letter to Jarvis, the MCB accuses the security minister of misrepresenting both the historical record and the MCB’s current positions. The group is demanding full transparency, asking: “What specific evidential basis and assessments underscore a decision that justifies treating a matter resolved by your predecessors in government as still valid 16 years later?” It added that British Muslims deserve clear accountability, noting that the MCB is the democratically selected representative body for more than 500 community groups across the UK.

MEE has confirmed that Jarvis intends to respond to the MCB’s letter, but the government has indicated it currently has no plans to reverse its policy of non-engagement with the organization.

A high-ranking U.S. National Guard officer has admitted to orchestrating an elaborate multi-year fraud and bigamy scheme that exploited government resources and forged official records to maintain a secret double life, federal prosecutors have confirmed. Forty-year-old Major Collin Welch entered a guilty plea this Tuesday to two key criminal charges: the theft of roughly $54,000 in public funds, and the illegal inducement of a Mongolian woman and her daughter to remain in the United States beyond the terms of their legal visas. He is currently awaiting a sentencing hearing at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., with no date for the proceeding publicly announced as of yet.

The deceptive scheme traces back to 2019, when Welch was deployed with the Alaska National Guard to a posting at the U.S. Embassy in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. It was during this assignment that he met the woman who would become his second wife, and their romantic relationship continued even after he completed his posting and returned to Alaska in 2021. He relocated to Arkansas the following year, and the pair held their first marriage ceremony in Mongolia in 2022. To secure this marriage, Welch created a forged divorce decree that falsely claimed his first marriage to his original spouse had been legally dissolved, court documents show.

By 2023, Welch had moved to Washington, D.C., alongside his first family, having accepted a new position with the District of Columbia National Guard that required frequent international travel. To keep his double life hidden, he repeatedly misused his official government travel card to rent local hotel rooms in the Washington area, where he would take video calls with his second wife. This subterfuge prevented her from discovering he was actually living full-time with his first family in the district. He also submitted fraudulent reimbursement claims to the federal government and lied to his chain of command to get unauthorized approval for international trips to visit his second spouse, according to the official statement of facts filed alongside his plea agreement.

Earlier this year, Welch used government funds to cover plane tickets for the Mongolian woman and her daughter to relocate to the United States. After their arrival, he held a second marriage ceremony in Virginia, once again lying about his marital status by claiming he had never been married before. He covered all their living expenses for an apartment in Northern Virginia, but the arrangement collapsed late last year when he attempted to pay rent using forged checks, resulting in the pair being evicted from the unit.

Throughout the time the two were living in the U.S., Welch was fully aware that their tourist visas had long expired. To maintain the lie that their residency was legal, he forged a wide array of fake official records, including forged correspondence from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, fake Social Security cards, and a falsified Department of Defense letter that falsely claimed the pair were enrolled in the U.S. military’s health insurance program.

In a statement provided to the court, Welch’s defense attorney Gregory Rosen acknowledged that repeated long-distance deployments — including overseas assignments to Afghanistan and Djibouti, and years spent separated from his first family — created significant personal strain that contributed to Welch’s choices. Even so, Rosen emphasized that his client accepts full accountability for every illegal action he took, noting that this willingness to take responsibility reveals more about Welch’s character than the list of offensive acts alone can convey.