GoKawiilThe British state rigged the trial of Tony Greenstein, a secular Jewish socialist and peace activist, to get him locked up for as much as 14 years – supposedly for “inviting support for Hamas”.
Fearful that the judge would punish his barrister for delivering a closing speech that properly defended him, Greenstein instead spoke directly to the jury.
For half an hour, he picked apart sham charges relating to three social media posts and a blog article he wrote against Israel’s genocide in Gaza. In doing so, he exposed the proceedings as a political show trial – one of a growing number, designed to silence opposition both to Israel’s genocide in Gaza and to the British state’s complicity in it.
In summing up, Judge Sarah Plaschkes said she had considered referring Greenstein for contempt of court. But instead she dismissed his eloquent, damning address to the jury as a “rambling speech delivered by an old man”. At that point, presumably, she had no idea what impact Greenstein’s words would have on the jury.
In a stinging rebuke to the judge, the jury members unanimously acquitted him after just two hours of deliberation. As it turned out, it was not Greenstein on trial; it was British justice.
Once given a chance to hear all the facts, not just the ones curated by the Crown, the jury accepted Greenstein’s arguments, including his accusation that the judiciary were readily conniving in the growing authoritarianism unleashed by the UK state’s complicity in genocide.
Which may explain why Greenstein’s landmark victory in a case with huge implications for free speech – and the right to speak out on the British state’s partnership in Israel’s genocide – was almost entirely ignored by the establishment media.
Had the jury found against him, you can be sure that same media would have covered the matter extensively, playing its part in sending a message to audiences that they should keep their heads down and avoid showing any solidarity with the Palestinian people or risk sharing Greenstein’s fate.
His acquittal, and the British state’s humiliation, was not a message the state – or the billionaire-owned media – wanted publicised.
What Greenstein’s closing speech managed to do was introduce something the British state and its judiciary have been carefully trying to strip out of the current wave of show trials of anti-genocide activists: important context.
... continue reading