Imagine you’re in a car accident and someone is killed. You’re charged with manslaughter and found guilty by a jury. But the jury isn’t told that what you will be sentenced for isn’t manslaughter, but murder.

That’s effectively what’s just happened to four young people who used ‘direct action’ in 2024 to try and stop the Israeli firm Elbit systems producing weapons used in the Gaza genocide.

The four had already spent 18 months on remand charged with criminal damage. They were convicted on these charges but received sentences totalling 24 years because the judge applied a "terrorism connection" to the charges - significantly more than a sentence for criminal damage.

So, original charges were made for criminal damage and that’s what a jury found them guilty of, BUT sentences were passed under terrorism legislation that attracted far longer prison terms. This decision was kept secret from jurors and the public until after criminal damage convictions had been secured.

Unbelievably, during the trial defendants were forbidden from explaining the reasons for the actions that they took. This could have influenced the jury. The defence barrister was outrageously charged with contempt of court for reminding jurors of their ancient right to ‘acquit on conscience’. This, of course, is why the Government wants to restrict jury trials.

The right to explain the motive behind a criminal act is fundamental to justice. Elbit produces drones not only for surveillance but also to execute violence. Many children have been shot and killed by them. The Israeli’s play recordings of people screaming for help following bombings, and when rescuers appear, they are in turn targeted. They record babies crying so that when people try and find them, they are shot.

The logic of the judge was that the ‘terrorists’ were trying to influence the Government of Israel to stop a genocide that it is conducting in Gaza.

Of course, the Filton Four were. But is this terrorism? A terrorist is someone who uses indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians. It is really stretching things to regard the destruction of property as a terrorist act. The Filton 4 became the first people in the UK to be sentenced with this "terrorism enhancement" for political protest offences.

Israel’s genocide in Gaza is textbook terrorism. Depriving them of weapons to do it is not.

So far, some 74,000 people have been killed by Israel in Gaza. About 3,000 people have been arrested as ‘terrorists’ in the UK for trying to stop it and declaring support for Palestine Action by ‘holding signs up’.

This is the new political shorthand. If you criticise Israel – you are an antisemite. If you oppose a genocide – you are a terrorist.

In opposing genocide, the Filton 4 are in good company. In 2024 the International Court of Justice declared that a ‘plausible genocide’ was being conducted. Subsequently the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for the arrest of the PM of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Are we all terrorists now?