In one of the UK’s more disturbing shifts towards authoritarianism, two supporters of Palestine were convicted in June of harassing an MP because they dared challenge her on Gaza. Their convictions have now been overturned at Cardiff Crown Court.
Ayeshah Behit and Hida Ahmed had been given conditional discharges and ordered to pay fines after handing out leaflets, accusing Alex Davies-Jones MP of supporting genocide. The government minister chose to confront the pair on the leaflets and they then questioned her on her voting record. This took place in the build up to the 2024 general election when Davies-Jones was on the campaign trail.
After choosing to confront the women on their leaflets, Alex Davies-Jones changed her mind. She walked away as the women followed, asking more questions. Outrageously, this was deemed to be “harassment” and the pair were arrested and prosecuted for challenging their MP.
Bail conditions included forbidding the women from posting on social media about Davies-Jones in the build up to the election. For example, they weren’t allowed to say she had triggered a police investigation into them. They weren’t even allowed to point out she is a member of Labour Friends of Israel! In other words, police censored two campaigners to boost an MP’s election chances.
Disturbingly, one of the women—Ayeshah Behit—was denied anti-seizure medication during her arrest and told that she wouldn’t be released if she kept asking for it. Anyone who knows anything about epilepsy knows how dangerous this is.
What we have here is two people handing out leaflets criticising a minister because our government is a participant in the great crime of our time - the Gaza genocide. The minister chose to confront the pair during an election campaign and when things got heated, she played the victim, saying she felt “scared, intimidated and threatened”. Absurdly, Davies-Jones says she had to be accompanied by “close protection officers” as a result of being questioned by two women.
In the original convictions, the judge said to the pair: “I would love to say you are remorseful. I suspect you are not. I suspect your views will be held until something happens very differently in that area of the world.” Does that sound like the judge was expressing bias towards Israel? Like the women should change their views on Israel and Palestine? How can that comment possibly be acceptable in a court setting?
If the original convictions stood, it would mean that when a government minister chose to confront us, we could not question them. It would mean that politicians could simply run away and play the victim whenever they were challenged. It would mean the government can participate in genocide without the public being allowed to hold them to account.
Alex Davies-Jones has denied being a supporter of genocide, however, she has consistently supported Israel during her time as an MP. First of all, there is her affiliation with Labour Friends of Israel. She has joined LFI delegations on fully-funded trips to Israel before and after 7 October. She refused to sign a letter in March 2024, demanding a suspension of arms sales to Israel. She is widely considered to be one of the most pro-Israel members of parliament.
Since 7 October, Davies-Jones has demanded social media censorship of criticism of Israel, including “violent videos”, insisting: “We all have a basic right to feel safe online”. Obviously, by the nature of war, any truly informative video could be considered violent. Davies-Jones called such videos “antisemitic content”.
Davies-Jones has not called for pro-Israel misinformation to be censored. She has actually pushed pro-Israel misinformation herself—the claim of mass rapes on 7 October for which there is no credible evidence. A claim that has been used by Israel to justify its genocidal actions.
She told parliament in May 2024:
“That is why I want to briefly comment on the abhorrent acts of sexual violence committed by Hamas in its attack on southern Israel on 7 October. I know from my discussions with the charity as the shadow Minister for domestic abuse and safeguarding that the accusations levelled at Israeli women—that they were lying about the brutal rapes and sexual violence that took place on 7 October—served to undermine confidence in the services that Jewish Women’s Aid offers.”
Davies-Jones said this during a discussion on the Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict. However, she failed to mention the proven systemic sexual violence carried out by the Israeli military. What is bizarre about her words is that no Israeli women claim to have been raped on 7 October. There are zero confirmed cases of rape and no victim testimonies, which begs the question: which women does Davies-Jones think were accused of lying? Should she be censored for her misinformation? Or should I be prosecuted for pointing it out?
Davies-Jones says she still receives “abuse” on social media (she means criticism) for her pro-Israel stance. She blames Ayeshah Behit and Hida Ahmed for this criticism, rather than the fact her track record is abysmal. Thankfully, the appeal judge saw sense and pointed out:
“Alex Davies-Jones as an individual and as a political figure come as a whole.
“[But] she was never targeted in her capacity as an individual, it wasn’t at her home address that she was targeted.
“This was political speech... it was very clearly to do with Labour Party policy and decisions.
“It was not only in a public place, but it was within her constituency... In the middle of a national campaign for the general election.”
While the appeal was successful, it’s worth pointing out the judge was far from perfect. Absurdly, she pointed out the pair had carried out a campaign to harm the electoral chances of Davies-Jones, suggesting measures such as a police warning or civil action should have been considered.
Basically, the judge thinks that if you campaign against a politician, you should not be prosecuted, but you should be warned by police, and possibly sued? This serves as a reminder that our free speech is very much under attack and the only debate among the establishment is how far they should go in their censorship measures.
Thank you for reading. All of my content will always be freely available, but if you wish to support my work, you can do so at Ko-fi or Patreon. Likes, shares and comments also help massively.
She's a racist too. I doubt she would have taken legal action against white women if they'd held her to account as an MP. The way they have been treated in this process is disgraceful.
What the heck was that judge thinking? They’re not fit for the bench.