I can confirm that it is highly likely that Israel's Andy Burnham is almost certainly lying through his teeth.

The above is a link to my latest article. Please read the article before commenting here. Tomorrow's judgement will be given in writing. There is no hearing.

craigmurray.org.uk/archives/… Tomorrow at 10am we get the judgement in our appeal against the suspension of the Scottish judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action. We

Look at the bottom scale of that graph. It includes data up until 15 October, which is amazing as it hasn't happened yet. This fake anti-Russian propaganda is being retweeted everywhere.

IN THE COURT OF SESSION AFFIDAVIT OF CRAIG JOHN MURRAY IN THE PETITION of CRAIG MURRAY, residing at Edinburgh EH10 PETITIONER For judicial review of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025 At Edinburgh on the NINTH day of JANUARY 2026, in the presence of David James Finlay Halliday, solicitor and notary public, Halliday Campbell WS, solicitors, Edinburgh, EH16 5PQ, COMPEARED CRAIG JOHN MURRAY, residing at Edinburgh, EH10 who being solemnly sworn hereby DEPONES as follows:- I am Craig John Murray, born 17 October 1958, resident at Edinburgh EH10. I am a journalist in alternative media, retired diplomat and British Ambassador, and a campaigning political activist. I have a particular interest in Palestine having campaigned on the issue since I first joined the Friends of Palestine in 1977, with a hiatus during my period in the FCO. I also have a particular long-term interest in freedom of speech issues. I supported Palestine Action since its inception. I had frequently for decades expressed the view that Palestinians have been subject to ethnic cleansing and genocide for over seven decades. This did not start on October 7 2023. I therefore strongly supported the efforts of Palestine Action to disrupt the Israeli defence industry's procurement and manufacturing infrastructure in this country. I still support direct action against Israeli interests, in particular in view of the accelerated genocide of the last two years. I believe that the proscription of Palestine Action constrains my human right to freedom of expression, as a part of its general chilling effect upon journalism and upon individuals. As my main income comes from subscriptions to my published blog, the curtailment of my ability there to write of ..redacted.. Palestine Action also affects my professional career and directly my income. I do not support terrorism nor violence against individuals; neither does Palestine Action. The notion that constraining my human right to express my views is a necessary measure to combat terrorism is, in my view, absurd. I was myself subject to detention under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act at Glasgow Airport on 19 October 2023, and questioned by police on my views and activism on Palestine. My mobile telephone and laptop computer were confiscated and I received a letter stating I am under continued investigation (which to my knowledge has not been closed). The United Nations has queried with the British government the arbitrary nature of my de facto arrest in a letter dated 4 December 2024 which it sent to the British Government. A copy of the letter is produced as Annex 1 to this Affidavit. On 10 and 11 May 2023 – over two years before proscription - I participated in a Palestine Action picket at the Elbit factory outside the city of Leicester. Elbit is Israel's leading weapons manufacturer and responsible for many of the weapons that have been massacring tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza. As is the case with the vast majority of Palestine Action events, this was an entirely peaceful protest. Over the two days I was there it consisted of nine people, on the pavement opposite the factory, causing no disruption whatsoever. Nonetheless the police attempted to disperse us, my first encounter with the gross abuse and denial of citizens' rights in the UK in support of the Israeli defence industry. I published immediately two articles on my website detailing my experience, stating that this was a specifically Palestine Action event and providing a link to Palestine Action's website. My articles make clear that I was there as a supporter and activist, not merely as a journalist. Copies of the articles, titled “Freedom of Speech: Elbit and Fascist Policing” and “Now Protest Is a Moral Duty”, are produced as, respectively, Annex 2 and Annex 3 to this Affidavit. Almost since its foundation I have had direct contact with Palestine Action's founders, Richard Barnard and Huda Ammori. I have shared a flat with them when lobbying the Labour Party conference in Liverpool almost three years ago. I have advised them on legal representation. I have turned up to support Richard when he was charged with terrorism offences at the Old Bailey, and spent some hours strategising with them after that event. I have attended the hearings at the High Court and Court of Appeal in London on the proscription of Palestine Action, reported on them, and discussed legal strategy for the plaintiff Huda Ammori with both Huda Ammori and, with Huda's consent, directly with Gareth Peirce, Raza Husain KC and Blinne Ni Gharaligh KC. Palestine Action did not have a membership structure. I was therefore not a member before its dissolution. I was however an active collaborator. I was in the public gallery at the International Court of Justice in the Hague for the hearings in South Africa vs Israel on Israel's alleged breach of the Genocide Convention. From October 2024 to February 2025 (with a short festive season break) I was resident in Lebanon reporting from the ground on Israeli attacks on Beirut, the Bekaa Valley and Southern Lebanon. I am concerned at the extreme and disproportionate effect of the proscription of Palestine Action not just as a supporter of Palestine, but also as a supporter of free speech. I have written frequently on freedom of speech and assembly issues. Notably I have published articles on individual attacks on free speech, such as the prosecution of Mark Hirst. On March 21 2024 I published an article attacking Scotland's new hate speech legislation on freedom of speech grounds. I take the unfashionable view of defending the free speech even of those with whose views I profoundly disagree – for example I published an article against the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly. A copy of these articles, titled “Scotland's Hate Speech Act and Abuse of Process” and “Lucy Connolly Should Be Released” are produced as, respectively, Annex 4 and Annex 5 to this Affidavit. I would argue that anybody whose rights are constrained by the proscription of Palestine Action should have standing to challenge it. That an executive action which limits the rights of everybody equally cannot be challenged as it therefore does not limit the rights of anybody in particular, is an absurd contention. But if particular status is needed I have it. I have participated in Palestine Action protests and have demonstrably supported them. I am a colleague and collaborator of Palestine Action's founders. I am a journalist whose freedom of expression is being curtailed disproportionately. I have a demonstrable long term particular interest in Palestine and in Article X and XI freedoms. I am a Scot. I live in Scotland. Scotland is where I wish to publish my views redacted Palestine Action. Scotland is where my established Article X and XI human rights are being infringed. I wish to seek the protection of the courts in my own jurisdiction against executive infringement of my rights within this jurisdiction. As I understand it, the Scottish courts are not subservient or junior to the courts of England and Wales. Their opinion is equally valid and – crucially – the courts of Scotland have the absolute right to take a different view, even in a very similar or identical matter, to the court of England and Wales. The disproportionate effect of the proscription of Palestine Action on individuals in Scotland has been appalling. Scores of peaceful people of entirely good character have been arrested on absurd pretence of “terrorism”. Terrorism related charges are life changing. They do not only bring potential imprisonment. They bring loss of employment, debanking and loss of access to money, and severe international travel restriction. I have met entirely decent people in Scotland who have suffered all these consequences of the proscription. I have met an elderly female pensioner whose home was raided and searched by counter terrorism police in the early hours in front of her young grandchildren. On 18 August 2025 I travelled to Dunoon for the court appearance of Bill Williamson, aged 73. Bill had been arrested in Dunoon High Street on 16 August 2025 at a regular weekly vigil for Palestine, for displaying a sign allegedly supporting Palestine Action. He was handcuffed in public and led away by four policemen. He was told he was arrested for a terrorism offence. Bill, a man of impeccable character who is a stroke victim, was kept in the police cells all weekend, for two nights, with no food given to him suitable to his diet. He was produced at Dunoon Sherrif Court on Monday afternoon but released without – so far – any charge. This kind of disgusting treatment of a respectable elderly Scottish citizen exercising the right of peaceful protest and assembly in a small town like Dunoon is precisely the kind of disproportionate nonsense I want a judicial review to stop. A copy of the article published on the website of the Dunoon Observer and Argyllshire Standard on 21 August 2025, titled “Dunoon’s pro-Palestine protestor ‘liberated’” is produced as Annex 6 to this Affidavit. It is not only those accused of supporting Palestine Action who have suffered dreadful abuse of their rights in Scotland since the proscription. Prior to the proscription, nobody taking direct action against the Israeli arms supply chain in Scotland had been charged with terrorism related offences. On 17 July 2025 three women were arrested in a direct action at Leonardo weapons factory in Edinburgh which allegedly slightly damaged a security fence. The action is not alleged to relate to Palestine Action. Nevertheless the women were treated as terrorism offenders and their treatment by police was appalling. They were transferred to Govan Police Station where they were held in the special terrorism unit without charge for five days. They were held incommunicado in this time. At the request of the support group for the women and of the women's families, with which I had direct contact, I arranged for the best available legal representation for the women. However the police refused to pass on the details of the arranged legal representatives to the women. They also refused to allow their families to contact the women. I had given details of the arranged legal representatives to the families but the police also refused to allow the families to communicate this to the women. They therefore arrived in court for charging unaware that alternative legal representation had been arranged for them to the standard duty solicitors with which they had been provided. I understand that this keeping of the women incommunicado and therefore not allowing them information on choice of legal representation was entirely because of the different way alleged “terrorists” are treated. The women were informed by police they were being charged under the Terrorism Act, but at the court itself they learned that this had been replaced by charges “aggravated” by terrorism. The Scottish Counter Terrorism Strategy Board (CONTEST) includes the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, security services, COSLA and others ( I believe including the Crown Office). The CONTEST minutes for May 2025, released under the Freedom of Information Act, include the following: “Palestine Action Group (PAG)Palestine Action are extremely active in Scotland, particularly within the protest activity space. This is a co-ordinated group, which is known for escalating violence in other parts of the UK.Currently within Scotland, this group has been focused on protest activity which has not been close to meeting the statutory definition of terrorism; CT policing continues to monitor their activity and are prepared to intervene where necessary” A copy of the extract of the minutes is produced as Annex 7 to this Affidavit. Five UN Special Rapporteurs have submitted to the English judicial review that UK counter-terrorism legislation fails to meet international standards in conflating property damage not endangering life with terrorism. A copy of a press release titled “UN experts urge United Kingdom not to misuse terrorism laws against protest group Palestine Action” issued by The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on 1 July 2025 is produced as Annex 8 to this Affidavit. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights himself, Mr Volker Turk, has urged the UK government to rescind the proscription, stating: “I urge the UK Government to rescind its decision to proscribe Palestine Action and to halt investigations and further proceedings against protesters who have been arrested on the basis of this proscription. I also call on the UK Government to review and revise its counter-terrorism legislation, including its definition of terrorist acts, to bring it fully in line with international human rights norms and standards.” A copy of a press release titled “ UK: Palestine Action ban ‘disturbing’ misuse of UK counter-terrorism legislation, Türk warns” issued by The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on 1 July 2025 is produced as Annex 9 to this Affidavit. In the Scottish legal tradition sovereignty rests with the people, not with the Crown in parliament. In the English legal and constitutional tradition, parliament may do anything, be it ever so authoritarian. Parliament could legislate to repeal the Human Rights Act or cancel elections, and English courts would likely uphold that if properly passed through parliament and approved by the Crown. I believe that the Scottish tradition of legal thought and practice should and does provide greater protection for the people from arbitrary and oppressive government, as expressed in the still in force Claim of Right. That is why I believe it is important for a Scottish court to hear this judicial review in Scotland for theprotection of the people of Scotland from what I see as an arbitrary, oppressive, politically motivated and intellectually absurd executive action. This affidavit addresses the issues of standing for the hearing on 12 January, not the whole matter for judicial review. All of which is truth as the deponent shall answer to God. Signed this ninth day of January 2026 at Edinburgh before me, David James Finlay Halliday, Solicitor and Notary Public Edinburgh