It was a warm morning, and a lengthy crew stretched down the steps outside Birmingham Crown Court. Across the road, protestors chanted: “Majid, we are proud of you.” Today, at the end of a two-week trial – in which Majid Freeman faces up to ten years in prison for terrorism charges based on a series of social media posts – it was the prosecution’s turn to cross-examine the defendant.
Praising Palestinian ‘resistance’
Freeman was already on stand when the jury entered. A court officer with handcuffs on her belt was sitting a short distance behind him.
Freeman is not accused of violence, or even of providing material support to a proscribed organisation. Rather, the claim is that, during the Gaza genocide, Freeman’s online posts praising the Palestinian “resistance” were a coded invitation to others to support Hamas, proscribed in the UK in its entirety by then Conservative Home Secretary Priti Patel in 2021.
Prosecution barrister Tom Williams got straight to the point, beginning with private messages the police had obtained from Freeman’s phone using Cellebrite software. Notably, the messages are from before Patel’s proscription of Hamas’ political wing.
The prosecution’s cross-examination
Williams asked:
You were a supporter back then, weren’t you?
“No”, Freeman replied.
And you’re still a supporter now, aren’t you?
“No”, Freeman repeated.
Williams asked: “Where do you differ then?”
I agree with them on certain points, such as resisting against the genocide. I disagree, for example, with innocent civilians being harmed under any circumstances.
The prosecution referred to a poem Freeman had reposted: “Everyone has a bullet or a gun in their hand.”
The prosecutor then asked:
You think people should take action after watching your videos. Do you agree with that principle?
Freeman replied:
Yes, and I wanted to educate people.
“And your phone was your gun?” the prosecutor asked.
Yes, to amplify the voices of the Palestinians.
The prosecution turned their attention to another private message recovered from Freeman’s phone, in which he told friends: “We have a duty to humanise and glorify the resistance.”
“Were posting videos a part of that?” Williams asked.
No. I was documenting the fact that there was still a fightback, that the Palestinians were still surviving. This was about explaining to the public: no-one is coming to save the Palestinians. World leaders had openly said at the time: ‘We know what is happening, but we are not going to call for a ceasefire.’
Williams then asked why the defendant had posted under the pseudonym “Freeman”, rather than his full name, Majid Novsarka.
I receive so many death threats from Zionists for speaking out for Palestinians, and that’s why so many people don’t! I wanted to protect my family.
Just before midday, the jury were excused for a short break. One observer in the public gallery commented that the prosecution barrister was becoming “visibly frustrated”.
The trial resumes
When the trial resumed, more social media posts were presented on the jurors’ screens. When the prosecution reached row 59 of the ‘timeline’, Freeman addressed the jury directly:
This is a perfect example of the point I’m trying to make. Row 58 shows a video I shared from Al Quds Brigades [the armed wing of Fatah]. Row 59 shows a video shared from Al Qassam Brigades [the armed wing of Hamas]. If the UN had intervened, I would have been sharing their videos too!
In all of my posts, I used the hashtag ‘#gazaresists’, not ‘Hamas resists’.
The prosecutor asked about comments on some of Freeman’s Instagram posts, which praised Hamas specifically. Freeman replied:
Most come from countries where Hamas is not a proscribed organisation.
Freeman picked up the evidence bundle and again addressed the jury directly:
Between rows 108 and 109, there may have been up to 50 posts showing atrocities [that are not included here].
We have to show the whole picture. We can’t just show Palestinians dying non-stop. They are also able to fight back.
The defence follows up
When the prosecution finished their cross-examination at 3.15pm, defence barrister Hossein Zahir KC told the judge that he would be brief in his follow-up. He asked:
Do you use the red triangle emoji to represent Hamas?
“No”, Freeman replied.
Were you using red triangles to invite support for Hamas?
“No”, Freeman replied.
In supporting ‘the resistance’, were you inviting support for Hamas as an organisation?
“No”, Freeman replied.
That’s all my questions, Your Honour.
Judge Andrew Smith KC turned to address the jury. On Tuesday morning, he explained, both sides will give their closing speeches. Then, they would be invited to begin their deliberations.
“Imagine if we didn’t have juries”, an observer in the public gallery noted.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
From Canary via This RSS Feed.