Heartland

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:00**

RicheyJames wrote:what lengths we as a society are prepared to sacrifice our civil liberties to restrain the act of a few extremists?

Benjamin Franklin wrote:They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:09**

Gosh you boys have been busy ...

@ Andy - I'm not making assumptions. Civilised society is built upon the fundamental rule of law. Without it we have anarchy. The law is the law. You, me, anyone, doesn't have to agree with it but we do abide by it. We do live in a democracy. We have the right to free speech. We have the right to protest. We have the right to demonstrate. Peacefully. When said actions result in violence, vandalism and intimidation in the workplace and/or the home, whatever the twisted motivation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the offence, the government has a duty to act. The activities of animal rights activists are being cited as an example to justify amending existing legislation and gets me back on topic. Phew!

@ RJ - It's a big step between protest and terrorism, depending on your definition of terrorism but stepping outside the law is certainly heading in the wrong direction.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:10**

Oops just noticed that LC posted the same Ben Franklin quote. Before I did. Well it's worth saying twice

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:16**

JB wrote:stepping outside the law is certainly heading in the wrong direction.

I'd say that is not true in all cases. An example I can think of is "whistleblowing".

The famous case was Clive Ponting; he exposed abuses at the government spy centre (GCHQ?) and thereby broke the official secrets act. IIRC at his trial his defence was "yes, I did it, but even though it was illegal, it was the right thing to do." Also IIRC, the jury acquited him "in the teeth of the law".

This is a legal principle dating back to at least Magna Carta called "Jury nullification"; a jury has the right to acquit if they think that the although someone is guilty of breaking a law, that law is wrong/unjust.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:25**

I think there's always a case that you can step outside the law - even in an elected democracy - if that law is immoral. I guess that's because your ethics/morality shouldn't be dictated by the laws that the governments pass, but rather by your own beliefs.

The obvious historical example are the anti-Jewish laws passed by Hitler in 1935, 12 months after he was democratically elected to power. Or the Suffragettes breaking the law in the UK to gain rights for women.

Both the Suffragettes and the Germans who opposed Hitler by breaking the law and helping the Jews, would both be labelled as terrorists by a contemporary western government. The label "terrorist" is usually applied by those in power to further their own ends - it's not an "absolute" definition.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:30**

Yes Mark I agree with you. There are always exceptions to the rule but once again we're drifting off topic. The government are amending legislation to curb the 'activities' of animal rights activists. Is it justified? Does it infringe their civil liberties? Am I starting to sound like Killroy?

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:37**

but going back to the original story....

the grauniad wrote:He [Blunkett] is expected to introduce a specific criminal offence of protesting outside someone's home in an intimidating way and to make it an arrestable offence to return to someone's home after being found guilty of aggressive behaviour.

is that really an essential liberty? do we have a "right" to protest outside the home of anyone we disagree in an intimidating way? it's not a "right" i'd miss anyway.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:38**

@JB - It seems to me that most offences these (or any) activists could commit already have laws against them - from breaking a window (criminal damage) to intimidation (Public Order Act 1986, section 5). And obviously arson, planting explosives, physical violence against people etc are all already illegal.

So why does the government want to create more laws?

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:40**

RicheyJames wrote:but going back to the original story....

the grauniad wrote:He [Blunkett] is expected to introduce a specific criminal offence of protesting outside someone's home in an intimidating way and to make it an arrestable offence to return to someone's home after being found guilty of aggressive behaviour.
is that really an essential liberty? do we have a "right" to protest outside the home of anyone we disagree in an intimidating way? it's not a "right" i'd miss anyway.

The Public Order Act already outlaws intimidation.

Government's craft laws claiming they're doing it to stop one thing, but they are actually used to stop something else. Without seeing the wording of the proposed law, it's impossible to say what the government is really trying to do.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:47**

@JB, yes we are drifting off topic

The problem as I see it is that the definition of protesting outside someone's home in an intimidating way involves a subjective judgement of what exactly an intimidating way means. There is surely a danger that any currently lawful protest could quite easily be criminalised by an over-zealous interpretation of that particular phrase.

It's not particularly the civil rights of the animal-rights activists that I'm concerned about, but those of everyone else that are potentially being eroded in an attempt to "defend" us against "terrorists".

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:52**

JB wrote:It's a big step between protest and terrorism, depending on your definition of terrorism...

i'll go with the cambridge dictionary's definition:

cambridge advanced learner's dictionary wrote:terrorism
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

seems to pretty well cover the actions of animal rights extremists to me.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:52**

The Guarudian wrote:a criminal offence of protesting outside someone's home in an intimidating way and to make it an arrestable offence to return to someone's home after being found guilty of aggressive behaviour.

Surely standing outside someone's house glaring at them is not an arrestable offence at present? But it is intimidation. Yes, you can be moved along but there's nothing to stop you coming back the next day is there? I think the key is in the 'arrestable offence to return' once having been moved along previously.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:53**

surely protesting against an individual is just plain stupid, sure protest against the organisation outside their premises. But not the private residances of employees and employers.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:56**

RicheyJames wrote:
JB wrote:It's a big step between protest and terrorism, depending on your definition of terrorism...
i'll go with the cambridge dictionary's definition:

cambridge advanced learner's dictionary wrote:terrorism
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

seems to pretty well cover the actions of animal rights extremists to me.

what about (threats of) violent action on moral grounds?

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:58**

markfiend wrote:The problem as I see it is that the definition of protesting outside someone's home in an intimidating way involves a subjective judgement of what exactly an intimidating way means.

but isn't that true of the vast majority of law? there must be some reason for all these bloody lawyersl...

It's not particularly the civil rights of the animal-rights activists that I'm concerned about, but those of everyone else that are potentially being eroded in an attempt to "defend" us against "terrorists".

it's not quite the homeland security act though is it? it's about preventing a (sometimes violent) minority of people from causing fear and distress to those people (and their families) who happen to engage in activities they find distasteful (which brings hunt saboteurs to mind as well but that's a whole new topic).

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 14:58**

RicheyJames wrote:
cambridge advanced learner's dictionary wrote:terrorism
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

seems to pretty well cover the actions of animal rights extremists to me.

So non-violent direct action is not terrorism.

Non-violent direct action such as demonstration.

Anyone who is the target or subject of even the most well-mannered protest is bound to feel intimidated. So this proposal could effectively outlaw all protest? That can't be good for civil liberties.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 15:00**

markfiend wrote: The problem as I see it is that the definition of protesting outside someone's home in an intimidating way involves a subjective judgement of what exactly an intimidating way means.

Don't think so Mark. Four blokes stand outside your house, legally on the pavement, staring at your and Mrs Fiend in silence, everytime you come and go. Which part of 'intimidating way' are you struggling with?

Let's face it. If you saw one menacing bloke, standing silently outside, staring at your house for 10 mins, you'd feel intimidated.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 15:02**

Quiff Boy wrote:what about (threats of) violent action on moral grounds?

completely indefensible. even the most liberal of liberals (note the small "l"s) wouldn't defend your right to (threats of) violent action on any grounds. the only truly moral defence for violence is self-defence (which is why the wmd issue was so important to george and tony's case against iraq).

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 15:02**

RicheyJames wrote:it's about preventing a (sometimes violent) minority of people from causing fear and distress to those people (and their families) who happen to engage in activities they find distasteful

This is the purported intent, yes. But it's the uses to which such a law could be put after the fact that worries me.

RicheyJames wrote:(which brings hunt saboteurs to mind as well but that's a whole new topic).

As a former hunt saboteur, I'd be quite interested in your opinions of the matter.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 15:05**

JB wrote:Don't think so Mark. Four blokes stand outside your house, legally on the pavement, staring at your and Mrs Fiend in silence, everytime you come and go. Which part of 'intimidating way' are you struggling with?

Let's face it. If you saw one menacing bloke, standing silently outside, staring at your house for 10 mins, you'd feel intimidated.

I see what you mean. But the defence would be "we're only standing here, what's intimidating about that?"

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 15:11**

markfiend wrote:Anyone who is the target or subject of even the most well-mannered protest is bound to feel intimidated. So this proposal could effectively outlaw all protest? That can't be good for civil liberties.

now you're being (deliberately?) ridiculous. go back to the original article. we're talking about intimidating people outside their own home. i still can't see why anyone needs target individuals in this way? i fully support anyone's right to peaceful protest but there's a time and (more pertinently) a place for protest and i don't believe that that place is on any individual's doorstep.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 15:13**

markfiend wrote:As a former hunt saboteur, I'd be quite interested in your opinions of the matter.

as i said, that's a whole new kettle of fish. suffice to say that's an issue where we're really going to disagree....

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 15:18**

RicheyJames wrote:go back to the original article. we're talking about intimidating people outside their own home. i still can't see why anyone needs target individuals in this way? i fully support anyone's right to peaceful protest but there's a time and (more pertinently) a place for protest and i don't believe that that place is on any individual's doorstep.

true enough... unless individuals' doorsteps are the only place you can actually get your point of view into their consciousness.

i know that your average joe who works as a lab assistant at unilever doesnt have much say in their company's policies, and i don't support the protesting in such places (and i dont support violent direct action under any circumstances), but those slightly hugher up the chain of command are often so far removed from everyday comings and goings within their company (and more importantly outside their company's gates) that the only way you can get their attention is by parking yourself and a few dozen like-minded souls outside the drive of his manor house and making his life slightly less comfortable.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 15:18**

markfiend wrote:
JB wrote:Don't think so Mark. Four blokes stand outside your house, legally on the pavement, staring at your and Mrs Fiend in silence, everytime you come and go. Which part of 'intimidating way' are you struggling with?

Let's face it. If you saw one menacing bloke, standing silently outside, staring at your house for 10 mins, you'd feel intimidated.
I see what you mean. But the defence would be "we're only standing here, what's intimidating about that?"

From their perspective maybe but not you and yours. Why else would they be there other than to intimidate? I guess, if the police bothered to respond, they could move them along muttering something about 'suspicion to commit a public order offence' but at the moment there's nothing to stop them coming back which the amended bill will presumably try to address.

Posted: **28 Jul 2004, 15:18**

As another former hunt saboteur, I'd like to bring attention to what Douglas Hogg (fiercely pro-hunting Tory) said about hunt saboteurs in a parliamentary debate about terrorism:

Douglas Hogg wrote:For example, the hunt saboteurs ... threaten serious violence to property. Incidentally, they threaten serious violence to individuals as well.

I strongly disapprove of all those characters, and I am glad to say that existing criminal law covers, in almost every respect, their activities. However, if I ask myself whether they should be treated as terrorists, I am bound to say, no way.

So even the tories (and this was at the height of their power) refused to label hunt saboteurs as terrorists. (Hogg goes on to say why he believes so, it's all a bit long-winded, but very well argued - you can find it here: clicky)

So why attempt to label hunt saboteurs and animal rights activists as "terrorists" now?

Why would the government want to re-label (i.e. spin) their political opponents as terrorists, especially at a time when everyone is extremely fearful of terrorism and many sectors of the public will ignore incursions on civil liberties when they're told it's "for their protection". (clue: the answer's in the question!)

Heartland

animal rights extremists?