- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Crispin Flintoff: I’m joined on the Crispin Flintoff Show – one day after his birthday – by Craig Murray. How you doing, Craig?
Craig Murray: Fine, thank you, Chris. Not too hung over.
Crispin: Right. Well, that that’s good to know. It’s good that you can keep going, even on the day after your birthday, because there’s so much going on around the world and it’s very confusing what’s happening. Your insight is helpful to everyone.
This is a headline from the ‘reliable’ BBC: “Government loses bid to block appeal against Palestine Action ban”. I watched the hearing on a live stream yesterday – it wasn’t very long. It seems like the government’s attempt to stop a judicial hearing into the ban on Palestine Action has been defeated, but also they got a bloody nose on it as well. What’s your take on what happened in this ruling yesterday?
Craig: Yes, that’s right. This actually makes Shabana Mahmood look really stupid, because the government attempted to block the judicial review, by appealing to the Court of Appeal against the decision to have a judicial review. And not only did the government lose that appeal, but two of the grounds of judicial review which had been dismissed earlier were brought back. So now instead of there being a judicial review on three counts, there’s a judicial review on five counts. So Shabana Mahmood made an extremely stupid decision to attempt to block the review – which possibly has annoyed the judges, because what the government was basically arguing was that the judges are not competent to hear this. And the judges have replied saying: “Yes, we are competent to hear this. The courts can hear this, and we’re going to hear it. And what’s more, we’re bringing back two grounds of review”.
Crispin: Do you regard that as a positive thing that the judges are sort of fighting back, or is that something we could look at as a trend that might help us – that the judges won’t just follow whatever the government’s doing?
Craig: Yes, I think that is true, and it’s more likely to happen the more senior judges you get, basically – and these were very senior judges. And there’s no doubt yesterday was a victory and this is a moment of celebration. But it doesn’t mean that the judicial review is won: we will have to see what happens when the judicial review goes ahead. But I’m reasonably optimistic for it. I don’t think by any means it’s hopeless. Because the grounds which they added back in both related to the process of how Yvette Cooper did this: her failure to take all the factors she should have taken into account, into account; and her failure to consult enough people. There are now three different grounds of review which all relate to that question. And it does seem that the way this was brought in by Yvette Cooper – contrary to a great deal of advice, without any widespread consultation (other than with the Israeli embassy and with arms companies) – that, I think, is something which the judges are going to very seriously look at in the review.
Crispin: Well, that’s good news. But on the same sort of time as that, you’ve written a disturbing article here about “36-Minute Trials and No Jury, Starmer’s Fascist Mass Courts“:
Those charged with terrorism for supporting Palestine action will have no jury and trials limited to 36 minutes each, with prison sentences up to six months. These are the plans for Starmer Courts for mass trials of anti-Genocide protesters.
So if the judicial review doesn’t rule in favour of Palestine Action and continues the proscription, it’s a bleak future for everyone who’s participated in these actions, isn’t it? In the ‘Defend Our Jury’ actions, I mean.
Craig: Yeah, very much so. I mean, this is pretty desperate; and again one more good thing about yesterday’s decision is – as yesterday’s decision made absolutely plain, which wasn’t plain before, but the Court of Appeals spelt it out – that if the judicial view finds that Yvette Cooper acted unlawfully, then all these prosecutions will fall. It will be retrospective: everybody who’s charged under the Terrorism Act of supporting Palestine Action – those prosecutions will all be lost. And that’s extremely important. So we’ve got to win that judicial review.
If we don’t win that judicial review, we saw this this appalling thing that they’ve got lined up where they’re going to run and conclude trials of 10 people a day, who will basically get 36 minutes each – and that’s 36 minutes for the judge and the prosecution and the defence and the cross-examination – so your actual time to defend yourself will be 10 minutes or something. And there’ll be no jury: these are summary charges, before a magistrate. And that’s what they have planned.
This was all set out in court two days ago, where Judge Michael Snow set this timetable and explained that 2,000 people are going to be put through this process and potentially jailed. And it was put to him – both by lawyers and by some of the defendants – that this just was not enough time for a fair trial. You can’t have a fair trial in 36 minutes on something that might send you to prison. And he said, “I am not giving more time. Your only remedy is to go to the High Court.” Of course, individuals can’t afford to go to the High Court. So what they’re planning is this kind of mass processing of people in quick, kind of Judge Jeffrey’s, courts: pretend courts where they’re just going to get people in and sentence them to jail, one after the other very, very quickly, conceivably. And they don’t have to jail them – they could fine them –but my guess is they’re going to jail people. And that really is quite appalling. I mean, there’s almost no pretence at justice here.
Crispin: I mean, does it not seem a bit like the ‘street bail’ thing where they arrested people on the street – they didn’t take them into the station? They’re trying to cut the time it takes to do the administration of these things, but at some point it will clog up the prisons or something. They’re sort of pushing it on, further down the line, but at some point it will become unworkable. If there are 2,000 people who are given jail sentences, that just sounds too much to take, doesn’t it, for the system?
Craig: They’re going to run on 200 court days – so that’s basically a year. And there’s a court (I can’t remember which one, it might be Stratford) … there’s a courtroom in East London which has been set aside for a year to do it. So they are planning to do it. And they’ll do 10 people a day – as I say, 36 minutes each – and shove them through for 200 consecutive working days.
But you must remember these are terrorism charges. So jail is only part of the problem. One thing is – and I know several people this has happened to now – you will be debanked: you will lose your banking services. I’ve spoken to one young lady: her bank just cancelled her bank accounts, no other bank will open an account for her, and she’s lost her savings. She cannot access the money that was in her bank account.
And you can’t travel to many countries – including the United States, but many others – if you’ve faced charges, or been convicted, of terrorism. And people are losing their jobs because they have a terrorist conviction: being sacked.
So the jail sentence is only a part of it, if you like. These are absolutely life-changing charges. People are having their lives ruined, and being given a few minutes before a judge, in a kind of Judge Jeffrey’s court, in order to do it.
And some of these trials are starting shortly. I saw Audrey White from Liverpool was saying her trial is in November, on November the 11th, which is before the judicial review. So plainly that they’re looking to actually kick off some of this ahead of the judicial review.
Crispin: I mean, these are political prisoners effectively, aren’t they? And if you had that many political prisoners, it would be a nightmare for the government, wouldn’t it?
Craig: Yeah, it would. I don’t know what they’re planning to do. I don’t know whether they’re already having to release actual criminals earlier from jail. I should say, in saying that, I think we send far too many people to jail for petty offenses. We have the most unimaginative and useless – useless in the literal sense (it does no good) – criminal justice system in the world, really. But they are releasing actual criminals early, because the jails are overfull. Whether they would look to open detention camps, in the same way they think of detaining asylum seekers. How they’re actually planning to do this, I don’t know; there will be a plan they are working on.
But I don’t think anybody should underestimate how dangerous and authoritarian Starmer is, I really don’t. People may recall that when we had riots a while ago while he was DPP, he was involved in the instigation of “quick justice”, as he called it – a very similar thing to mass courts: bunging people through, half an hour each … bang, bang, bang, bang, off you go to prison! This is something that Starmer has form on.
Crispin:It shows how important the judicial review is. But also, you won’t stop doing stuff, will you? I mean, this is your fundraiser here for a Scottish challenge to the proscription of Palestine Action. (You’re quite a way off target: we’ll put this link out when the interview is put out there.) So what is the basis of a Scottish challenge to the proscription? Can you tell people about that?
Craig: Yeah, well, it’s simply this: the court that heard yesterday’s appeal, which was won – sorry, which the government lost: the appeal was lost, but we won – was the Court of Appeal of England and Wales; and the judicial review is by the High Court of England and Wales, which has no jurisdiction in Scotland. So we are taking out … as a separate two-track approach, we’re taking out – in cooperation with Huda Ammori, who’s the plaintiff in the English case; I’m the plaintiff in the Scottish case (or “petitioner”, I think it’s called in Scotland) – a separate review in Scotland. Which gives us two chances to win, if you like.
And there are precedents: for example, when Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament – you may remember, he got rid of Parliament in order to get Brexit through by preventing Parliament from sitting – and that was challenged in exactly this way: in the English courts by Gina Miller, and in the Scottish courts by Joanna Cherry. And actually the English court said what Johnson did was legal, and the Scottish court said that what Johnson did was illegal. So it can be … in fact, it’s not an improbable result that we will win in the Scottish court but lose in the English court. (It could be vice versa, but it gives you two chances basically.) And in the prorogation case, it was then taken by the government to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided in favour of the Scottish courts: the Supreme Court came out saying that what Boris Johnson did was illegal. So it’s another string to our bow. It’s having two shots at it.
But you’re right. I must say the crowdfund is going disappointingly slow. It’s very good of you to point it out, because we really, really need this. We need to get this going in the Scottish courts as well.
Crispin: How long have you got before the money is needed?
Craig: At the moment, because it’s on crowdjustice.com, and they don’t … the money goes straight to the lawyers, and unless you hit your target you don’t get anything, basically. So we put an initial target of £15,000. (In fact, frankly, we’re going to need an awful lot more than that, but we’re certainly going to need that £15,000 within a fortnight, to get us past just the next wee stage.
Crispin: Can they be anonymous donations as well?
Craig: They can, yeah. Your donations can be anonymous.
Crispin: Right … so anyone won’t be implicated in worrying about being a supporter of Palestine Action or something like that?
Craig: It was extremely difficult with CrowdJustice to go through … I mean, for example, I wanted to put just a picture of the Gazan destroyed landscape to illustrate the appeal, and that wasn’t allowed. I wasn’t allowed to actually write anything about what the appeal is about, really … because CrowdJustice themselves were worried about being prosecuted for supporting Palestine Action, even though they’re merely the website raising funds which go to the lawyer. So I know people do worry.
I should say it was stated very, very clearly in the Court of Appeal – not on this occasion but on the last time we were in the Court of Appeal on Palestine Action on the 4th of July – the Court of Appeal stated very, very clearly: it is not illegal to campaign for the deproscription of Palestine Action. It’s illegal to support Palestine Action, but to campaign for its deproscription on the grounds that it shouldn’t be proscribed, without actually saying you support its aims and objectives, is not illegal.
Crispin: Okay, it’s good to clear that up. Now, you talked about Gaza there.
You’ve also brought up an issue in your tweets – I’m sure lots of people follow your tweets; people often forward me screenshots of your tweets. This was one that was forwarded to me as well:
There is an imminent danger of a UN Security Council Resolution which legalizes and formalizes Israeli occupation and blockade of Gaza during a “transitional period” – which will never end.
Trump, Starmer, and Macron are pushing this. Real danger China and Russia will not veto.
You’ve also followed that up, saying:
they want to get this through the UNSCR before the ICJ ruling on Israel’s blockade of aid agencies is delivered on the 22nd of October.
So very shortly … very soon. Can you tell me what that’s about and what your fear is there?
Craig: Yeah. What the British and the Americans and the French are working on at the United Nations, is a Security Council Resolution which endorses Trump’s peace plan. It may do things like endorse the peacekeeping force which will go into Gaza – which may be a UN peacekeeping force, or it may be a “coalition of the willing” (as they call it) type peacekeeping force that’s not actually under UN control but which nonetheless would be endorsed by a Security Council Resolution. What the Americans and the British are seeking to do is, by endorsing the withdrawal plan that keeps Israeli troops in Gaza (and we know that they’re intending ultimately to remain always in Gaza, to have a buffer zone of several miles into Gaza) – they will never leave. A Security Council Resolution would legalize that. So all of the past law that’s been built up – including the ICJ ruling of 2024 on the occupation being illegal, including the decision on the Wall and the right to armed resistance – all of that would fall. It would be superseded and replaced by a new Security Council Resolution which legalizes Israeli occupation of the part of the Gaza Strip, which legalizes whatever blockade mechanisms are in, which legalizes the disarmament of Palestinians. Basically, the Trump plan would become international law because it’s endorsed by the Security Council, and we would lose a huge amount of accumulated legal decisions against the Israelis.
Crispin: You also say China and Russia will not veto, but why do you think that?
Craig: Well, the Russians came out in support – active support – of a Trump peace plan, which astonished me, frankly. But they did. And I know that Putin is very cognizant of the fact that there are millions – literally – of Russian Israelis, Russian-speaking Israelis, and that an awful lot of the oligarchs around Putin are Zionists. So I’m not sure Putin sees an interest in vetoing it. And the Chinese – although almost everything they’ve ever said, since the genocide started, at the Security Council, I’ve agreed with them; they’ve been very good – again, I’m not sure they see an interest in vetoing it, at a time when they’re in (potentially) a very damaging start of a trade war with Trump and the United States.
Crispin: Does it only need one country to veto?
Craig: Of the permanent five, it only needs one.
Crispin: Right.
Craig: So out of Russia, France, China, America, and the UK, any one of them can veto. Other than that, you have the other members and you need a majority. But there’s a real danger of a Security Council Resolution which endorses the Trump peace plan, and that then supersedes accumulated international law on the illegality of the occupation. And it could, for example, legalize the maritime blockade – could legalize blockade arrangements.
So I’m very worried about this. This is a very worrying development.
Crispin: And it’s on, you said, the 22nd of October – they want to get this through before then?
Craig: Well, on the 22nd of October, the International Court of Justice brings out its decision where it’s almost certainly going to say that Israel’s actions in blocking UNRWA and blocking other aid agencies, have been illegal and that Israel has an obligation as the occupying power to provide aid – and it hasn’t been doing that. It’s going to be quite damaging for them. So they’d quite like to supersede that by a new legal arrangement, before that judgment comes out. I don’t think, now, they’ll manage to do it. From what I understand, in terms of negotiating a text at New York, I’m hearing that things possibly aren’t going fast enough for them to get it done by the 22nd of October. But whenever they do get it through, that then becomes the status quo.
It’s actually very similar to Lebanon. Before this one – in 2008, I think – the last big previous Israeli invasion of Lebanon resulted in a Security Council Resolution which is awful and extremely one-sided, and which mandates the disarmament of Hezbollah, and which mandates effectively a buffer zone up to the Litani river, and which is used by the Israelis and the Americans to justify the daily bombings we are seeing in Lebanon – all over Lebanon. And they did manage it because the world gets into these periods of war-weariness where it’s prepared to agree anything to kind of smooth over what’s happened and move on. And they did get such a resolution – I think it’s 1707 – for Lebanon. And there’s a danger of a really bad security resolution coming out of this that establishes the Trump plan in international law, and in that way legalizes elements of the Israeli occupation.
Crispin: Right. Well, we we’ll see what happens. I’m interested to find out what about that. Thank you for clearing that one up.
Now, you were at the UN yourself … I didn’t know that you were, and then I saw this clip. This is a very interesting clip. I’ll just play it so everyone can see it …
UN General Assembly 80th session, Fourth Committee, 3rd plenary meeting, 7th Oct 2025
Craig Murray:
Thank you, Mr. President, distinguished members of the committee. It’s 2025. We are a quarter of the way through the 21st century already, and the world is sick of settler colonialism. We shouldn’t still be talking about it, and we should have got rid of it. And New Caledonia is one of the worst examples of continued settler colonialism. It’s a place where the indigenous people are not only deprived of their power in the state, deprived of autonomy in major monetary, fiscal, defence, foreign policy. It’s a place where they are excluded from economic autonomy, where they are excluded from most of the wealth of the natural resources of the colony. This cannot stand. And we have a situation where local people driven to despair by their circumstances react with an act of understandable resistance, and that is met with military force and the old excuses by the colonizer to stamp down on the colonized. And we’re seeing practices I find it hard to believe we are still seeing. We are seeing young members of the resistance shipped 10,000 miles away from their homes and their families to prison in France – in the prisons of the colonizer. And we’re even seeing a situation where a French court recently ruled that one of them should be sent back to New Caledonia, and he’s still in prison in Paris while a French government appeals against that decision. This is not the 19th century! These kinds of behaviours need to stop. And now we’re seeing fake agreements which are rejected in the declaration of the 24th of September by the legitimate representatives of the Kanak people. Let’s have no more of these colonial tricks. Let’s have no more of these fake agreements. The French have one duty in New Caledonia, and that’s to get out of New Caledonia! Thank you.Crispin: That’s a very good end to your speech there. Can you tell us why you were a petitioner, and more about the issues that you were talking about, in New Caledonia?
Craig: Yeah. Well, it’s a rather roundabout story in a sense, because the main reason I was in New York is that we’re trying to get Scotland added to the list of non-self-governing territories because I believe Scotland is in fact a colony. People find that hard to take in. When you tell them Ireland was a colony, people have no difficulty in accepting Ireland was a colony. But you tell them Scotland’s a colony and people find it hard, even though the two situations are extremely similar. You know, Ireland also had a Treaty of Union. Ireland had people serving in the British armed forces. Ireland had people owning slaves. The co-option of a colonized into the imperial venture is always part of imperialism.
But anyway, I’m involved in that ‘decolonization space’ at the United Nations, and we’re making common cause with other colonized peoples and the liberation movements: people like the indigenous people of New Caledonia, who suffer terrible discrimination and exploitation and are now a minority in their own country. And also with liberation movement countries like Nicaragua and Venezuela. We’re trying to get the United Nations to take a much more radical approach to decolonizing the world’s remaining colonies.
Crispin: Right. And what about New Caledonia? What’s happened there? Because what you mentioned, I haven’t seen any of this. Obviously we’re not going to see French imperial news in this country, but what has been happening there? Someone being sent to a French prison from there? It seems really extraordinary.
Craig: Yeah. The position of the Kanak people – who are the native people of New Caledonia is very, very bad. New Caledonia has got one of the world’s biggest nickel mines. That’s the French interest in it. It’s massively used for nickel extraction. There are no native people – except in the most menial labour – employed in the industry. And all the profit from it, of course none of it goes to the native people of New Caledonia. And the indigenous people live in great poverty and hopelessness – and with a lot of drug and alcohol, and all those other, problems – exactly as happens to demoralized, colonized people – including, for example, as happened for years and years to the Native Americans, for exactly that set of problems. They rose up three or four years ago, and there was quite a nasty, violent rebellion – and I think about 20 people were killed, all in all. As a result of it, the leaders of the native rebellion were shipped to France to be tried, as opposed to being tried at home in New Caledonia. They’re young men. They’re very, very young men – and there are several of them now in French prisons, far away from their families. And these are the leaders of the independence movement: they’re not people charged with directly killing people themselves. They were charged with instigating rioting and that kind of thing. It’s a very sad story.
But of course, everyone will be seeing the parallels towards Israel and settler colonialism. And of course, when people are extremely badly oppressed, it results in violence. That’s what happened on October the 7th. You know, colonized people will resist. Colonized people have a right to resist. And I think everyone in the United Nations in New York got the subtext of what I was saying in that way.
Crispin: Brilliant. Well, I don’t know how you do all this stuff, Craig – because not only do you actually do stuff, you write prolifically about it as well. And the fact you found half an hour to talk to me is even more extraordinary, after your birthday. Brilliant! Just keep going – don’t die! We need to embalm you, like Bentham, but before you die … or do like a Michael Jackson thing where you go in an ice thing (well, that didn’t work for him, did it?) where he went in some kind of … )
Craig: I’m kind of embalming myself from the inside, with whisky! I think that’s a lot of the secret of my longevity and continued energy.
Crispin: Right. Look, I’m not advising anyone at home to take your diet and your strategy for a long life, but it’s good to see you keep going. And you’re an inspiration to me and everyone else. So thank you so much for doing this. I’ll let you get on with whatever it is you’re going to be doing – because there’s probably something really important you got to do now. So thank you.
