But it is our best effort. I don't think even an abstract concept of justice is served by taking into account political motivation for your actions unless you apply the principle blindly. Do you think someone spraying right-wing slogans like "deport all migrants" or "traitors" or just "fuck you" on RNLI buildings should be off the hook because they think there's an existential threat to the country from a trickle of refugees? Do you think they should be allowed to bring up those beliefs in court?

Besides assigning consequences to bad actions, justice must in the first instance be fair. I see no fair way to privilege motivations that I sympathise with (anti-Israeli-genocide) but not ones that I find detestable (anti-immigrant).

To determine facts. For them to be able to do that, they need to not be subjected to irrelevant emotional arguments.

Throughout these comments I've been asking what people think if the slogan had instead been "deport all immigrants" - do you have a view on whether a jury should hear a defendant's motivation for spraying something like that?

They're welcome to say that. I'll stick with my own beliefs and those of the judge in this case though, after a brief read of some of that long paper. You're welcome to make the case, though.