--Tico--
How to use anti-terror laws to protect corporate grandeur; a case study
Thank goodness, the original far-reaching injunction sought by BAA was not granted by Mrs Justice Swift. It proposed to prevent activists from a wide range of environmental groups going to Heathrow to attend activities at a week-long Camp for Climate Action (14-21 August). A direct protest action directed at Heathrow Airport however remains on the agenda. Now the police is going to use anti-terrorism powers to curtail protesters.
A document produced by Met commander Peter Broadhurst states:
"Should individuals or small groups seek to take action outside of lawful protest they will be dealt with robustly using terrorism powers. This is because the presence of large numbers of protesters at or near the airport will reduce our ability to proactively counter the terrorist act [threat],"
Source: Guardian 11th of August
The question that immediately should come to mind:
What exactly can be defined as "lawful protest" ?
According to George Monbiot (the Guardian) under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act, amended by the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act used in the high court yesterday, all protest is arguably unlawful. Read his argument here, I think it is pretty convincing.
But even so, if protests can be banned under the before mentioned laws, why is Scotland Yard choosing to impose the anti-terror laws? Is it perhaps because this law comes with special powers, namely detention without charge and the so-called Section 44 powers (stop and search), that may work as a larger deterrent?
At the time the Terrorism Act 2000 was drafted, human rights and civil liberty advocates warned against the potential for this law to be applied in situations that had nothing to do with terrorism but the official government line was that 'police would never actually use these powers that way'. Since then, however, this claim has been proved false on several occasions. See for example:
story one
story two
story three
and a report on the anti-war protesters at the RAF base at Fairford (Gloucestershire) in 2003.
So, is England heading to a police state? Where is the outrage? I am surprised that most of the news coverage focuses on the camp itself rather than the misuse of the anti-terror laws. Perhaps becoming a cliche, though nonetheless very apt, it's about time to seriously consider what Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".
How to use anti-terror laws to protect corporate grandeur; a case study
Thank goodness, the original far-reaching injunction sought by BAA was not granted by Mrs Justice Swift. It proposed to prevent activists from a wide range of environmental groups going to Heathrow to attend activities at a week-long Camp for Climate Action (14-21 August). A direct protest action directed at Heathrow Airport however remains on the agenda. Now the police is going to use anti-terrorism powers to curtail protesters.
A document produced by Met commander Peter Broadhurst states:
"Should individuals or small groups seek to take action outside of lawful protest they will be dealt with robustly using terrorism powers. This is because the presence of large numbers of protesters at or near the airport will reduce our ability to proactively counter the terrorist act [threat],"
Source: Guardian 11th of August
The question that immediately should come to mind:
What exactly can be defined as "lawful protest" ?
According to George Monbiot (the Guardian) under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act, amended by the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act used in the high court yesterday, all protest is arguably unlawful. Read his argument here, I think it is pretty convincing.
But even so, if protests can be banned under the before mentioned laws, why is Scotland Yard choosing to impose the anti-terror laws? Is it perhaps because this law comes with special powers, namely detention without charge and the so-called Section 44 powers (stop and search), that may work as a larger deterrent?
At the time the Terrorism Act 2000 was drafted, human rights and civil liberty advocates warned against the potential for this law to be applied in situations that had nothing to do with terrorism but the official government line was that 'police would never actually use these powers that way'. Since then, however, this claim has been proved false on several occasions. See for example:
story one
story two
story three
and a report on the anti-war protesters at the RAF base at Fairford (Gloucestershire) in 2003.
So, is England heading to a police state? Where is the outrage? I am surprised that most of the news coverage focuses on the camp itself rather than the misuse of the anti-terror laws. Perhaps becoming a cliche, though nonetheless very apt, it's about time to seriously consider what Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".