**Two Activists Convicted of Harassing Welsh MP During Election Campaign**
Two pro-Palestinian activists have been found guilty of harassing Pontypridd MP Alex Davies-Jones, following a heated confrontation on the streets of Treforest, Rhondda Cynon Taf, in the lead-up to the 2024 general election. The incident, which involved public shouting and the distribution of accusatory leaflets, culminated in a court hearing at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court, where the pair’s actions were described as part of a “deliberate and sustained campaign”.
Alex Davies-Jones, who has represented Pontypridd in Parliament since 2019 and currently serves as the UK Government’s minister for victims, recounted in court how she had felt deeply unsettled by the episode. The confrontation reportedly escalated quickly as she was approached by Ayeshah Behit, 31, and Hiba Ahmed, 26, both local residents of Treforest. They accused her of “supporting genocide” in relation to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.
During her testimony, Ms Davies-Jones detailed how the intensity of the activists’ behaviour left her and her campaign team feeling “scared and intimidated”. She emphasised her concern not only for her personal safety but also for the well-being of younger supporters present at the time, describing how the activists continued to follow and loudly berate her down the street. The MP explained that the exchange soon took a distressing turn, with the pair bellowing highly charged questions related to the conflict in Gaza and demanding to know her stance on the issue.
The campaign against Ms Davies-Jones did not end on the street. Later that day, Behit and Ahmed plastered the Labour campaign office in Pontypridd with posters and stickers, some of which were explicitly accusatory, including one reading, “Alex Davies-Jones supports genocide” and another provocatively asking, “How many murdered children is too many?” A video of the encounter was also uploaded to social media, further amplifying their message and branding the MP as racist.
Following the two-day trial, Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring concluded that the actions taken by Behit and Ahmed “went well beyond the boundaries of freedom of expression”. In his remarks, he noted that although political debate was essential in a democracy, their conduct was oppressive and intended to cause Ms Davies-Jones considerable alarm and distress. The MP ultimately paused her canvassing for the day as a result of the incident.
Handing down his verdict, Judge Goldspring observed, “This was part of a deliberate and sustained campaign targeting the complainant. This course of conduct was clearly designed to cause alarm and distress to her, and she did experience alarm and distress. It was not reasonable, and it was oppressive.” Despite both defendants citing a wish to encourage public scrutiny of political decisions, the court found them guilty of harassment.
Both women received conditional discharges: Ahmed, who is studying architecture at Cardiff University and has no previous convictions, was given a 12-month conditional discharge. Behit, who had one prior conviction related to a protest, was handed an 18-month conditional discharge. Each was ordered to pay £650 in legal costs and a £26 court surcharge.
Reacting to the outcome, Ms Davies-Jones expressed relief, while highlighting the increasing challenges faced by politicians in the current climate. She praised South Wales Police and court staff for their work and remarked, “We should be able to do our jobs freely and safely. Constructive debate is essential, but harassment and intimidation are never acceptable.”
For their part, Behit and Ahmed confirmed outside the courtroom that they intend to appeal the decision, maintaining their intent was not personal but rather to draw attention to issues concerning Palestine. They argued that their actions represented political protest, not criminal harassment.
This case comes amid growing scrutiny of the tone and safety of political discourse in the UK, especially as election campaigns bring politicians and activists into frequent and sometimes volatile contact. The verdict underlines the courts’ stance that while protest and disagreement are protected in a democracy, targeted harassment will not be tolerated.