For the vast majority of Majid Freeman’s trial, the Canary were the only media organisation present in the courtroom. But today, with both the prosecution and defence set to give their closing statements before the jury retired to decide on their verdict, the press benches were full for the first time.

Prosecution up first

The prosecution were up first, and immediately returned to the theme of “implied” meanings.

Barrister Tom Williams asked: Why had Freeman mentioned in a social media post that the owner of Libération – a French magazine that had published a cartoon mocking starving Palestinians in Gaza – was French-Israeli billionaire Patrick Drahi?

Williams admitted:

When a message is implied, it is right that you are careful.

Addressing Freeman by his legal surname, he added:

Mr. Novsarka says there’s nothing to see here. Please don’t be fooled by that.

An impassioned defence

After a short break just before midday, Hossein Zahir KC launched an impassioned defence of his client.

Addressing the eleven members of the public who will ultimately decide whether Freeman will be convicted as a terrorist or walk free, Zahir began:

This is the first time I’ve had the opportunity to address you directly.

When you first got called up for jury service, and you saw that this was a terrorism case, you might have thought it would be about people who posed a threat to this country.

You may not have thought that the trial would centre on someone being accused of terrorism on the basis of social media posts. Or that you would actually be focusing on the meaning of a red triangle. The ‘trial of the emoji’.

Next, the defence barrister turned to the question of Freeman’s character:

There is no dispute: he is not an extremist. Rather, he struggled for the Palestinians to be seen as humans, not as statistics.

Zahir impressed upon the jury the importance of their very presence in the courtroom, stating that:

vital decisions on the facts are not made by judges, police officers, or lawyers, but by the public, whom you represent. You speak for all of us.

He repeatedly emphasised that the burden of proof was upon the opposing counsel, saying:

There is no such thing as maybe or even probably guilty. There is a golden rule that runs through all of this: Mr. Novsarka does not have to prove his beliefs!

Nevertheless, Zahir felt it was important to remind the jury of what the defendant’s beliefs actually were:

We have heard in the agreed facts that ‘jihad’ has a multitude of meanings, and Mr. Novsarka does believe in an inner struggle and defending against oppression.

What he could not countenance was extremist groups that use the term to justify political violence. They are abhorrent to him. This was not challenged by the prosecution.

Mr. Novsarka campaigned for a ceasefire, not more bloodshed.

Defence dismisses the allegations of encouraging terrorism

The defence barrister dismissed the allegation that Mr. Novsarka encouraged terrorism:

You don’t get out of bed one morning with a violent, terrorist intent, and then just get on with your life, never to mention it again before or after.

In tens of thousands of posts, there is not a single mention or encouragement of violent terrorism. If there was, it would have been front and centre in front of you.

I would hazard, members of the jury, that you will have little difficulty in disposing of this count.

A powerful closing speech

Next, Zahir turned to the bulk of the evidence: Mr. Novsarka’s social media posts relating to the Gaza genocide. Zahir began:

Israel do not want the media live-streaming a genocide. Instead, it was documented by the Palestinians themselves.

I put it to you, members of the jury, that this is part of a proud tradition of reporting on events the powerful don’t want out there.

Mr. Novsarka is not neutral or registered with OFCOM – of course he isn’t – but this is what happens when ordinary people are pushed to the fore as a genocide is carried out, by-passing censorship and the determination with which Israel murdered journalists in Gaza. The defendant was seeking to expose deliberate and wilful eradication of a people.

We see the Israeli soldiers mocking the homes and lives they wreaked havoc upon. The task was not finished until they revelled in their destruction. You might think, members of the jury, that it’s not unreasonable to want resistance against that.

Commenting on Freeman’s wish to intervene online, Zahir continued:

Mr Novsarka told you he saw a genocide unfolding and was scared for the people of Palestine.

He was desperate to stop the massacre. He was pleased there was a fightback and posted to document it. Members of the jury, Palestinians should be allowed to determine how they fight back.

Mr. Novsarka expressed his solidarity for all forms of resistance, but particularly for those who gave their lives to prevent more Hind Rajabs, [the young Palestinian girl] left in a car of dead relatives, only for the ambulance on its way to rescue her to be blown to smithereens.

Imagine if we didn’t know. Imagine if people were intimidated into silence. Imagine if the Israeli military were left to carry out a dirty war of annihilation in the dark, with no-one to report it.

But the truth is getting out, isn’t it? Novsarka chose not to side with the oppressor, but to side with liberation. He devoted his life to others. He posted because he cannot stay silent in the face of horrors.

For people like him, the children of Palestine are heard screaming from under the rubble.

Rather than putting him in the dock on trial, you may think we should be commending him. Members of the jury, I would like you to return a verdict of not guilty.

At the end of the day, the jury was left to its deliberations. The Canary will report on the verdict when it is announced.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

From Canary via This RSS Feed.