Since the retrial of six Palestine Action (PA) activists began on April 13, the defendants have been barred under court order from using terms like “genocide” or discussing the target of their direction action protests. Meanwhile, supporters of PA have been arrested outside the court for holding signs advising jurors of their right to acquit the defendants based on conscience.

Now, a draft court order reviewed by The Grayzone reveals how the presiding judge has sought to comprehensively neutralize the PA activists’ ability to defend themselves by imposing crippling restrictions on what can be said in closing speeches. Under threat of secret contempt of court charges, the jury may be improperly swayed to convict them of serious crimes, not knowing harsh “terrorism”-related sentences will be attached.

PA was formed in 2020 to challenge the presence of Israeli weapons factories on British soil through hundreds of direct actions which focused exclusively on inflicting property damage. The group’s tactics have proved remarkably effective, causing millions in damage to Israel’s Elbit Systems and the closure of numerous factories across Britain. After Elbit appealed to the British state, it began conspiring with the weapons manufacturer to crack down on the activists.

The six PA activists currently on trial – Samuel Corner, Jordan Devlin, Charlotte Head, Leona Kamio, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, and Zoe Rogers – were acquitted of aggravated burglary in February. As The Grayzone exposed on April 12, a biased presiding Judge Jeremy Johnson sought to engineer a legal stitchup before the retrial to ensure the defendants were convicted. A former barrister for the MI6 and Metropolitan Police, Johnson has forbidden the jury from knowing that he can sentence the defendants on “terrorism” charges if they are convicted on lesser criminal charges.

During last February’s trial, Judge Johnson employed countless connivances to limit what evidence jurors could hear, while limiting the defenses they could consider when ruling on defendants’ guilt. PA lawyer Rajiv Menon used his closing remarks to remind jurors of their historic legal right to acquit based on conscience, known as jury equity. In multiple previous trials, PA activists had secured acquittals by arguing that their actions were necessary to prevent the much more grave crime of killing of civilians from taking place. 

After the February trial of the six activists failed to produce a conviction, Judge Johnson initiated unprecedented contempt of court proceedings to punish Menon, the defense lawyer, for his successful closing arguments. 

In the rigged retrial, the activists could be sentenced to as many as eight years in prison on criminal damage charges alone, and without jurors being aware of the penalties involved. Imprisoned activists would not be eligible for early parole, and their eventual release would have to be approved by a dedicated board for terror cases. They would be subject to control orders and police surveillance when freed. 

To secure these convictions, Johnson has imposed a new secret gag order on defendants and their lawyers. If they dare to violate it, they risk prison for contempt of court. 

A copy of the order obtained by The Grayzone exposes Judge Johnson’s egregious weaponization of contempt of court charges to sway jurors. Defendants and their lawyers are prevented from mentioning the principle of jury equity, which holds that a judge is forbidden from “[directing] a jury to convict.” They are also prohibited from inviting jurors to acquit the six activists based on conscience. That the activists believed “they had a defence to a charge of criminal damage” under British law likewise cannot be uttered.

Judge Johnson’s order furthermore bars the defendants and their lawyers from doing the following:

• Providing any reference to “Elbit’s activities in manufacturing weapons and supplying them to Israel; the nature of the property that the defendants damaged or destroyed; the defendants’ beliefs that weapons and other technology at Elbit’s factory would be used to kill or injure others, including children.” 
• Discussing “the history of the Middle East, including events…since October 7 2023,” or “Israel’s activities in Gaza” at any time.
• Probing the jury’s “background knowledge and/or view about those events.” 
• Mentioning that the six defendants “were arrested for terrorism offences,” subsequently remanded in custody for up to 18 months – under conditions so onerous several went on hunger strike, while one defendant attempted to commit suicide – then “acquitted of offences of aggravated burglary and violent disorder” in February.

Johnson’s naked attempts to rig the trial do not end there. At least nine people have been arrested for camping outside Woolwich crown court, where the six PA activists are being retried. Their crime was to have held signs reminding anyone entering the building – including jurors – of the principle of jury equity. Their signs read, “Jurors have an absolute right to acquit according to their conscience,” and “Jurors deserve to hear the whole truth.” They face contempt of court charges as a result.

The restrictions are so onerous that the activists are left with few legal means to defend themselves. They risk jail for contempt of court for providing the most basic context on their actions challenging the presence of the Israeli arms industry on British soil. 

Having failed to stamp out PA’s activism or limit its popular support, the British national security state has delegated Judge Johnson with securing its proscription as a terrorist group on par with Al Qaeda. To fulfill the elusive goal, he has prohibited activists and jurors alike from acting according to conscience, obliterating the remnants of British democracy to preserve a safe space for Israeli weapons firms.

https://thegrayzone.com/2026/04/29/uk-palestine-action-defendants-terror/

=======================

Mainstream media as accomplices in the Federal Council’s security policy strategy

mw. “A man runs across a zebra crossing in the centre of Lausanne, filming with his mobile phone in his hand. He shouts at a group of men standing on the pavement. ‘Aren’t you ashamed?’ he shouts in Farsi. At first, the men seem taken aback. Then they try to hide their faces and run away. But the man filming doesn’t let up; he continues towards them. ‘Don’t go away!’ he shouts, ‘Why are you running away? Where are you running to, traitor? Traitor!’ ”
    

This is how a sensationalist story begins in the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung”, with a sensationalist headline and lead: “The Iranian mullahs’ Swiss shadow network. On the trail of a secretive network of regime supporters that has come under increased scrutiny from the security authorities since the Iran War.”1 Across two pages of the newspaper, the authors stir up readers’ emotions and engage in opinion manipulation of the worst kind. For the man who is shown on his mobile phone chasing his fellow citizens whilst screaming is not a supporter of the Iranian government at all, but, on closer reading, turns out to be one of its opponents. However, with this inflammatory story and the eerie image of a human shadow on a pedestrian crossing, readers are deliberately steered in a different direction. The propaganda is reinforced by the first twelve online comments (it remains unclear how many of these are from readers), all of which call for the immediate expulsion of Iranian citizens loyal to the government from Switzerland.

In doing so, the editorial team is heeding Federal Councillor Martin Pfister’s call for the “quality media with high journalistic standards” to play an active role in shaping public opinion. According to Pfister’s “Security Policy Strategy 2026”, the media are to reinforce the state’s control over public opinion.2 An alarming “deal” between the executive and the so-called Fourth Estate – which, in a democracy, should actually be tasked with critically scrutinising state activities!

In their emotionally charged article, the journalists are effectively hounding three Iranian immigrants living in Lausanne who, following the assassination of their head of state, met with others there for a memorial service. One of the three, incidentally, is a Swiss citizen. They are invading their privacy, pillorying them by name, picture and professional details, and publicising their “allegedly close ties to the regime”. For example, one of them is said to be married to a woman whose father, “according to sources within the Iranian community”, is a professor at a university in Tehran that serves as a “training ground” for Revolutionary Guards. Collective punishment at its finest!

Having thoroughly torn the three Iranians to shreds, it is rather embarrassing that the authors ultimately have to admit: “There is no evidence of illegal activities [by X, Y and Z].” But they are “part of a pattern”, namely “that Swiss universities have repeatedly admitted students whose families belong to the elite of the Iranian power apparatus”. That is a trivial point: logically, many people from political elites’ study abroad. The journalists demand that the EPFL implement stricter admission controls. Do the journalists wish to accuse the “École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne EPFL” (the French-speaking Swiss counterpart to ETH Zurich) of allowing high-achieving scientists from all over the world, including Iran, to successfully complete their studies there and subsequently work in cutting-edge technology?
    

The article boils down to the question: “How is it possible that supporters of the regime are studying in Switzerland, that they meet here, live together, work together and conduct research?” Are we actually living in a police state here? Who lives and works with whom is nobody’s business – not the journalists’, not the readers’, nor anyone else’s. There are Iranians living in Switzerland who support their government, and those who oppose it. They, like everyone else in our country, enjoy the fundamental right to freedom of expression. This also includes the right to live in peace with one’s opinions, free from state-sponsored and media-driven witch hunts. •

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2026/no-8-21-april-2026/mainstream-media-as-accomplices-in-the-federal-councils-security-policy-strategy

======================

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….