A PRO-PALESTINE activist cleared of inviting support for terrorist groups has defiantly said she will keep speaking out on the issue and believes Jersey’s terrorism law needs updating as it is so broad that “anyone could fall foul of it”.
Speaking to the JEP after being found not guilty of two counts of inviting support for Hamas and Hezbollah, Natalie Strecker said the verdict brought to an end “one of the worst and most stressful years of my life”.
“I walk out of court with my head held high and in the knowledge that it was my character that was put on trial, and I won,” she said.
Mrs Strecker (50) faced charges under the Terrorism (Jersey) Law 2002 over a series of posts and videos in which she repeatedly used the phrase “the resistance” on social media between June and October 2024.
Whether she was using the term to encourage support for Hamas or Hezbollah – both classified as terrorist organisations – became the central question of the four-day Jurat trial.
Advocate Mark Boothman, defending, successfully argued the prosecution had reviewed tens of thousands of posts but selected eight “cherry-picked” examples.
He said her social media expressed her belief that Palestinians had the right to resist occupation under international law and did not invite support for terrorist groups.
The Court accepted that some statements were “unwise” and “capable of being construed as inviting support for Hamas and Hezbollah.”
However, Commissioner Sir John Saunders, presiding, said the Jurats were not satisfied that Mrs Strecker intended to encourage support for the terrorist groups – and therefore found her not guilty on both counts.
Explaining the verdict, Commissioner Saunders said that Mrs Strecker was someone of “good character” who had been “particularly moved by the suffering of those who live and have died in Gaza”, having previously been to Palestine and witnessed the “suffering of both adults and children”.
Her compassion and frustration, the Court said, had led her to make statements “capable” of crossing the line – but this “of itself is not enough to make her guilty.”
These comments marked the end of a year-long legal process that began with an early-morning raid on Mrs Strecker’s home last November when she was arrested – an event she said reopened “very old wounds”.
“I am a care survivor, a survivor of abuse, because of the failings of our government and institutions as a child,” she said.
“My home was raided in the early hours, which was really traumatic. I started having panic attacks as a consequence; I didn’t feel safe in my home.”
She said the months that followed were marked by fear, exhaustion and periods where she “could barely get out of bed”.
What kept her going, she said, was the memory of Palestinians she met while working as a human-rights monitor, her commitment to justice, and the solidarity shown in Jersey during the trial.
“I just kept going back to the Palestinian people and remembering what I saw when I was there.
“My values anchored me, and the recognition that my conscience was always clear.”
Her commitment to the Palestinian cause, she said, began with conversations overheard at work from a colleague whose Palestinian family lived under occupation.
Her curiosity and research led her to co-found the Jersey Palestine Solidarity Campaign in 2015.
She later travelled to Hebron, a city in the West Bank, as a human-rights monitor, where she said she saw children tear-gassed and families living under constant threat.
“When you see it with your own eyes, it changes you forever,” she said.
And it was this experience and her personal conviction, she said, that anchored her advocacy firmly in non-violence.
“My intent was always non-violent. It always has been,” she said.
She acknowledged that some of the messages read to the Royal Court – including one in which she said she wanted Israel to “burn” – were written in moments of anger and despair, but said they did not reflect her values.
“Those comments did not change who I am.”
Ms Strecker said she “did not appreciate how widely” Jersey’s terrorism law could be interpreted when she made the posts at the centre of the case and described it as “so broad” that “anyone could fall foul of it.”
She questioned whether such legislation is “fit for purpose” in a “liberal democracy,” and called for “free speech to be protected.”
The case, she said, had come at a heavy personal cost – particularly for her husband and family – but the support she received “kept me centred” and she was grateful to have raised awareness of the Palestinian cause.
Looking ahead, Ms Strecker said she plans to take time away from work to rest and heal after what she described as an overwhelmingly difficult year.
“I need a year off to process everything,” she said. “[But] I remain committed to the struggle for a kinder, fairer world, in which the right to freedom, justice, equality and a life of dignity are guaranteed for all in our human family.”
