- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 11,311
- 0
- 6
2 October 2026: International Day of Non-Violence
A retired social worker stands outside a courthouse holding a handwritten sign. Elsewhere, 13 people block the entrance to a federal building and wait to be cited. Neither raises a hand against anyone. Both acts fit within a long tradition of civil disobedience built around breaking a rule openly, without force, and requiring the state to answer through law.
Mohandas Gandhi developed his philosophy of nonviolent resistance, satyagraha, around that same tradition. His birthday later became the United Nations’ International Day of Non-Violence. On the day set aside to honor it, courts on two continents are still working out what the state’s answer should be.
The International Day of Non-Violence falls each year on October 2, Gandhi’s birthday, under UN General Assembly Resolution 61/271, adopted in 2007 with 140 co-sponsors. The resolution does not merely commemorate Gandhi; it reaffirms “the universal relevance of the principle of non-violence” and calls the day an occasion “to disseminate the message of non-violence, including through education and public awareness.”
In the United Kingdom, the same tradition runs through Trudi Warner, a retired social worker. In March 2023, she stood outside Inner London Crown Court holding a handwritten sign reading, “Jurors, you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”
The Solicitor General sought permission to bring contempt proceedings against her; in April 2024 the High Court refused it. Defend Our Juries treats a jury’s right to acquit on conscience as a nonviolent check on prosecutions it considers unjust.
That campaign collided with a larger test in July 2025, when the Home Secretary added Palestine Action to the list of banned organizations under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Proscription carries separate criminal consequences under the Act, including an offense for expressing an opinion supportive of a banned group while reckless as to whether others will be encouraged to support it.
The Metropolitan Police reported 523 arrests at one Trafalgar Square rally in April alone. Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori challenged the proscription and in February the High Court ruled the decision partly unlawful, finding the Home Secretary had improperly relied on the “operational advantages” proscription would hand police.
A five-member Court of Appeal panel reversed the decision in June and upheld the ban. The Supreme Court has since granted Ammori permission to appeal on one of her two grounds, with a hearing set for November 4 and 5; until then, the proscription and the criminal restrictions attached to supporting a banned organization remain in force.
A quieter version of the same question is playing out in Vermont, where 13 protesters were cited in July for blocking the entrance to an ICE facility in Williston. Chittenden County State’s Attorney Sarah George had already declined to prosecute more than 20 other ICE protesters this year.
For the July cases, state police bypassed George’s office and routed the citations directly to Attorney General Charity Clark. Of the 12 defendants arraigned in adult criminal court last week, all pleaded not guilty.
The Vermont defendants are charged with trespass, not violence; the UK litigation raises a different question about how the criminal consequences of proscription extend to nonviolent political expression by others.
What both disputes actually test is how much discretion a government may exercise, through a proscription statute or a prosecutor’s charging decision, before ordinary nonviolent political conduct becomes grounds for criminal liability.
Resolution 61/271 does not answer that question; it only asks states to keep disseminating the principle of non-violence “through education and public awareness.” On the day set aside to mark that principle’s universal relevance, courts on two continents are still drawing the line themselves.
The post A placard and a statute: observing the International Day of Non-Violence appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
A retired social worker stands outside a courthouse holding a handwritten sign. Elsewhere, 13 people block the entrance to a federal building and wait to be cited. Neither raises a hand against anyone. Both acts fit within a long tradition of civil disobedience built around breaking a rule openly, without force, and requiring the state to answer through law.
Mohandas Gandhi developed his philosophy of nonviolent resistance, satyagraha, around that same tradition. His birthday later became the United Nations’ International Day of Non-Violence. On the day set aside to honor it, courts on two continents are still working out what the state’s answer should be.
The International Day of Non-Violence falls each year on October 2, Gandhi’s birthday, under UN General Assembly Resolution 61/271, adopted in 2007 with 140 co-sponsors. The resolution does not merely commemorate Gandhi; it reaffirms “the universal relevance of the principle of non-violence” and calls the day an occasion “to disseminate the message of non-violence, including through education and public awareness.”
In the United Kingdom, the same tradition runs through Trudi Warner, a retired social worker. In March 2023, she stood outside Inner London Crown Court holding a handwritten sign reading, “Jurors, you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”
The Solicitor General sought permission to bring contempt proceedings against her; in April 2024 the High Court refused it. Defend Our Juries treats a jury’s right to acquit on conscience as a nonviolent check on prosecutions it considers unjust.
That campaign collided with a larger test in July 2025, when the Home Secretary added Palestine Action to the list of banned organizations under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Proscription carries separate criminal consequences under the Act, including an offense for expressing an opinion supportive of a banned group while reckless as to whether others will be encouraged to support it.
The Metropolitan Police reported 523 arrests at one Trafalgar Square rally in April alone. Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori challenged the proscription and in February the High Court ruled the decision partly unlawful, finding the Home Secretary had improperly relied on the “operational advantages” proscription would hand police.
A five-member Court of Appeal panel reversed the decision in June and upheld the ban. The Supreme Court has since granted Ammori permission to appeal on one of her two grounds, with a hearing set for November 4 and 5; until then, the proscription and the criminal restrictions attached to supporting a banned organization remain in force.
A quieter version of the same question is playing out in Vermont, where 13 protesters were cited in July for blocking the entrance to an ICE facility in Williston. Chittenden County State’s Attorney Sarah George had already declined to prosecute more than 20 other ICE protesters this year.
For the July cases, state police bypassed George’s office and routed the citations directly to Attorney General Charity Clark. Of the 12 defendants arraigned in adult criminal court last week, all pleaded not guilty.
The Vermont defendants are charged with trespass, not violence; the UK litigation raises a different question about how the criminal consequences of proscription extend to nonviolent political expression by others.
What both disputes actually test is how much discretion a government may exercise, through a proscription statute or a prosecutor’s charging decision, before ordinary nonviolent political conduct becomes grounds for criminal liability.
Resolution 61/271 does not answer that question; it only asks states to keep disseminating the principle of non-violence “through education and public awareness.” On the day set aside to mark that principle’s universal relevance, courts on two continents are still drawing the line themselves.
The post A placard and a statute: observing the International Day of Non-Violence appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.