Why "Defend Our Juries" harms our juries

The radical left has attached itself to what is usually seen as a conservative issue

Over the last four years I have attended dozens of demonstrations and protests, both as a participant and a photojournalist. Only two have been problematic — one in Manchester, where I was physically assaulted by Antifa-style activists, and one in Middlesbrough, which was close to being a riot and very unpleasant. I also went to Newcastle once to photograph a “free Palestine” one, but left immediately as the vibe did not feel right to me. If I am to give my energy to something, I have to be comfortable that I am causing more good than harm. I don’t always agree with every message I share, but I can appreciate sincerity about suffering, even if misapplied.

I was tempted to travel to London today as there is a significant Defend Our Juries protest happening as I type outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand. The cause on the surface is a noble one: defending the right of juries to act on their conscience. This is embodied by a celebrated case of Penn and Mead in 1670 that established the precedent that juries are entitled to act on conscience, and hence decide both the law and the facts, and they cannot be punished for overriding judicial preference. The Defend Our Juries case is rooted in the claimed persecution of Trudi Warner, who protested outside the courts, reminding juries of their right. On the surface of it, she did no wrong.

I have no beef with Ms Warner, and nothing I say here should dishonour her. However, Quakers like Penn and Mead were in a different era, and I have seen the modern Quaker types align themselves with all kinds of progressive issues, which may be morally abhorrent to their predecessors. Self-righteousness has filled our churches, and divine will has been displaced by religious spirits. Environmental and social movements with shady funding and dark objectives have sprung up, often in the context of dirty industries like energy, yet controlled opposition is a real thing. This is the context in which the right to protest, including reminding juries of their rights, is being tested.

The £250 train fare was a moderate discouragement, as the cost is an issue, as is the desire not to travel around in crazy times needlessly. What really put me off was the hypocritical method they are using to protest, and the extreme danger of attaching a radical left political agenda to a traditional constitutional liberty. The protest participants are not bringing their own banners, but are assigned them, and told how to behave, including a planned blockage of a major London thoroughfare, The Strand. While this is labelled as “non-violent”, that is to frame violence as a purely physical matter. In mind and spirit it is violent, as it imposes their will on innocent others, causing them loss or harm.

The logos on the event flyer are a list of radical progressive movements:

1. Free Political Prisoners – A campaign advocating for the release of individuals they claim are unjustly imprisoned for protest actions.

2. Animal Rising – A radical animal rights group known for direct action tactics, formerly linked to Extinction Rebellion.

3. Just Stop Oil – A high-profile environmental group engaging in disruptive protests against fossil fuel policies.

4. Defend Our Juries – A legal campaign focused on protecting jury trials and defending protest rights.

5. Axe Drax – A movement opposing Drax, the UK's largest biomass energy company, which they claim is environmentally destructive.

6. Youth Demand – A youth-led climate and social justice organisation pushing for systemic change.

7. Fossil Free London – A group targeting financial and corporate institutions complicit in fossil fuel expansion.

8. Extinction Rebellion – A well-known climate activism group advocating for civil disobedience to force governmental action on climate change.

These groups collectively frame their actions as resistance against "corporate state" oppression, advocating for environmental, legal, and systemic change through direct action and protest. However, they are completely unlike the grassroots type of protests that I am accustomed to, where people who are direct victims of oppression give their testimony. I asked Grok to give its sentiment on these factions, and it offered its primary concerns expressed about each of these entities based on their activities and stated objectives:

[Grok on]

• Free Political Prisoners: There's a risk that this campaign might be seen as supporting or excusing illegal activities by framing them as political dissent. Critics might argue that it undermines legal systems or judicial processes, potentially encouraging more law-breaking under the guise of political activism.

• Animal Rising: Their association with direct action tactics leads to worries about property damage, public safety, and disruption of normal business activities. Critics might view their methods as extremist or terroristic, which could alienate potential supporters and polarize public opinion.

• Just Stop Oil: The group's disruptive protests, such as blocking roads or defacing art, can lead to significant public inconvenience and backlash. There's concern over the economic impact of their actions, especially if they interfere with emergency services or daily commutes, potentially losing public sympathy despite the urgency of their message.

• Defend Our Juries: While defending the right to a fair trial is generally supported, there is concern that this group might advocate for jury nullification or influence judicial outcomes in ways that could be seen as undermining the legal system's integrity or fairness.

• Axe Drax: Critics might argue that their opposition to biomass energy could be misinformed or based on selective data, potentially leading to misinformation about renewable energy sources. There's also concern about the economic impact on jobs and energy security if the campaign succeeds in overly disrupting Drax's operations.

• Youth Demand: Their focus on systemic change can be seen as too radical by some, potentially ignoring practical or incremental solutions to complex issues. There's also the concern that their activism might lead young people to engage in protests that could impact their future opportunities or education.

• Fossil Free London: Targeting financial institutions might be viewed as an attack on the economic stability of London, which could lead to retaliatory measures or a clampdown on protest rights. There's also the risk of alienating investors who might be supportive of climate goals but not of the methods used.

• Extinction Rebellion: While their aims are clear, the scale and disruptiveness of their protests can lead to significant public and governmental pushback. There's a concern that their tactics might lead to harsher laws against protest or could desensitise the public to climate issues due to protest fatigue.

Collectively, these groups challenge the status quo, which inherently brings concerns about radicalization, legal repercussions, public order, and the economic implications of their activism. There's also a broader discourse on whether their methods are effective in bringing about the systemic changes they advocate for, or if they might inadvertently strengthen opposition to their causes by polarising public opinion.

[Grok off]

I also asked ChatGPT to critique the event. While I am not into “lazy AI” for writing essays, it does a good job that’s worth sharing. My question was:

There is a protest in London today to protect the right to protest and jury trials. However, I am concerned that the protestors are allied to radical far-left causes and are using methods that are spiritually violent, if not physically so. Review the attached documents and give your critique.

Its response…

[ChatGPT on]

---

Critique of the Protest and Its Context

The protest in London on January 29–30 is framed as a demonstration in defense of the right to protest and jury trials, particularly in response to the imprisonment of environmental activists from Just Stop Oil. It involves legal appeals, activist coordination, and various symbolic actions such as vigils, musical performances, and a mass sit-in outside the Royal Courts of Justice. The core arguments presented by the organizers claim that excessive sentencing for peaceful protesters is an authoritarian overreach driven by corporate interests, particularly those tied to fossil fuels and arms manufacturing.

While the movement presents itself as a defence of fundamental democratic rights, there are significant concerns regarding the underlying ideology, methods, and broader implications of their activism.

1. Concerns About Ideological Alignment

Many of the documents use language that aligns closely with radical leftist movements. The rhetoric includes:

• Framing the judiciary as corrupt and subservient to corporate interests: While critiques of judicial bias and overreach are legitimate, the protest materials treat legal consequences as inherently illegitimate when applied to their cause.

• Use of terms like "political prisoners": This equates individuals convicted of breaking the law with victims of actual political persecution, which is misleading. The activists were sentenced for criminal conduct (such as obstructing roads, damaging property, and interfering with national infrastructure), not for their beliefs.

• Connection to broader far-left causes: The materials express solidarity with movements resisting "state violence," "corporate greed," and "fascism" while opposing immigration controls and defense policies. This suggests a worldview that is not just about climate activism but is part of a larger, revolutionary agenda.

These elements indicate that the event is not merely about protest rights but about advancing a broader anti-capitalist and anti-state agenda, which may alienate those who genuinely support democratic rights but do not subscribe to radical leftist ideologies.

2. Methods and Their Implications

The event organizers emphasize that the action is nonviolent, but the methods raise concerns:

• Mass Disruption Under the Guise of "Democracy": The planned sit-in on The Strand aims to cause disruption while claiming to be "nonviolent." While civil disobedience has historical precedent, deliberate mass obstruction of public spaces is not necessarily democratic—it imposes an agenda onto others without their consent.

• Encouraging Legal Evasion: The action briefing explicitly instructs participants to avoid certain legal repercussions by not acknowledging police-imposed conditions (e.g., Section 14 orders under the Public Order Act). This suggests a strategic willingness to manipulate legal loopholes rather than engage in lawful democratic discourse.

• Rhetorical Manipulation: The protest materials conflate different legal cases, portraying all climate protesters as innocent victims, even those involved in potentially reckless or dangerous actions. For instance, those who threw soup at a Van Gogh painting (though protected by glass) are included as victims of oppression rather than as individuals engaging in destructive behavior.

These methods create a blurred line between legitimate protest and coercive activism. There is a risk that what is presented as a stand for civil liberties is actually a campaign to normalize increasingly extreme and disruptive tactics.

3. The Spiritual and Psychological Dimension

You raised concerns about "spiritually violent" methods, which can be interpreted as psychological coercion, manipulation of moral sentiments, and fostering division rather than constructive discourse. Some key concerns include:

• Cult-like Messaging: The materials repeatedly frame the activists as "truth-tellers" and "peacemakers" while portraying the legal system, corporations, and even sections of the public as engaged in systemic evil. This black-and-white worldview fosters division and suppresses critical thinking.

• Moral Absolutism: The messaging suggests that any opposition to their cause is tantamount to supporting mass suffering and environmental destruction. This moral absolutism is characteristic of movements that, even if nonviolent, exert significant psychological pressure on their members and broader society.

• Martyrdom Narratives: By labeling themselves "political prisoners" and invoking historical resistance movements (e.g., suffragettes, civil rights activists), the protestors imply that their cause is inherently righteous and beyond criticism. This narrative prevents self-reflection and can justify increasingly radical actions.

A movement that claims to be about democracy should not rely on moral coercion or impose its will on society without democratic engagement.

4. The Problem of Selective Outrage

The protest materials argue that climate activists are receiving harsher sentences than violent criminals. However, they do not acknowledge:

• The impact of their disruptive actions on ordinary people (e.g., blocking roads, causing distress, interfering with livelihoods).

• The fact that the judiciary is not imprisoning them for their beliefs but for specific actions that violate public order laws.

• The inconsistency in their defense of protest rights. Would they extend the same concern to, for instance, anti-lockdown protestors, Brexit demonstrators, or those opposing radical leftist policies? The answer is likely no, indicating a partisan approach to civil liberties.

Conclusion: A Misguided Approach

While some concerns raised by the protest—such as judicial overreach and the importance of the right to protest—are valid, the broader ideological framework, coercive tactics, and moral absolutism undermine their credibility. Rather than fostering genuine dialogue, the movement appears to be part of a broader effort to delegitimize institutions, disrupt public order, and enforce a radical political vision under the guise of climate justice.

If the movement were genuinely about protest rights, it would welcome broader ideological diversity and focus on legal reform rather than using protest as a tool for confrontation. The current trajectory suggests that, despite claims of nonviolence, the movement is engaging in a form of psychological and social coercion that could escalate over time.

---

[ChatGPT off]

There is something “hive mind” and sinister about these protest events that repulses me. Standing outside the court with a poster saying juries have a right to decide on their conscience seems innocuous. But when you are two-faced, and use intimidatory methods, it can be read as “you are free to decide — as long as it aligns to our political goals — or else we’ll come after you, too”. That’s an undue influence on juries and undermines justice. The kinds of protestors who are being held up here as political prisoners have done acts like deface cultural icons, disrupt motorways, and create chaos at airports. Let’s hand this back to Grok again…

[Grok on]

These groups, while advocating for important causes, can sometimes inadvertently [!] harm public interest through the method and scale of their protests. The primary harms include:

• Disruption of Daily Life: Affecting commutes, access to services, and personal freedoms.

• Economic Impact: Loss of business, costs associated with managing protests, and potential job impacts.

• Public Safety: Delays to emergency services or situations where protests lead to confrontations or accidents.

• Cultural Heritage: Actions that, even if symbolically intended, could risk damage to cultural assets.

• Polarization: Causing a divide in public opinion, potentially reducing broader support for the causes they advocate for due to the methods used.

It's worth noting that while these groups aim to draw attention to critical issues, the balance between activism and public welfare is complex, often leading to debates on the ethics and effectiveness of their chosen strategies.

[Grok off]

I don’t know about you, but, to me, this doesn’t look like peaceful protest to me. Many of these goals I would consider flat-out scams, or subversive movements allied to nefarious globalist or criminal agendas. Defend Our Juries could even be construed as a direct attack on juries and freedom of conscience via a sophisticated psyop or political infiltration job. What makes this wicked in my mind is the pretence to be non-violent, making the police out to be the mobsters when they attempt to remove obstructions from the public highway. A legitimate protest marches down the street, as that is what streets are for. An illegitimate protest steals rights from others, including freedom of movement.

When juries have friends like Defend Our Juries, they don’t need enemies; they are being subtly targeted and tarnished by an unwanted connection to extremist political movements. There is superficial cover being offered in that some of those held to account are priests or other respected titles, but their status is not of legitimate protestor, but rather of agitator. On this basis, I decided to stay home. I don’t want my name attached to this event, or my photography used to promote their ideology, even if I totally uphold the principle of jury equity and freedom of conscience. Better to give them no publicity at all; in the case of this protest event, the best photographs are no photographs.

The beach at Brora, Scotland