animal rights | ukwatch.net

Fifth Columnist

JamieSW — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:43:09 +0000

AS THE OBSERVER TROTS OUT POLICE LINE OVER ECO-TERRORISM

“Of course I don’t have a f*cking agenda. I’m a national newspaper journalist – why would I have an agenda?” – Mark Townsend, Observer journalist.

The Observer launched a broadside this week against the environmental movement. Headlined “Police warn of growing threat from eco-terrorists”- handily sub-headed, “Fear of deadly attack by lone maverick as officers alert major firms to danger of green extremism” – the article goes on to allege that “Officers are concerned that a ‘lone maverick’ eco-extremist may attempt a terrorist attack aimed at killing large numbers of Britons.” Of course not one shred of evidence is referred to in the thinly disguised puff-piece for the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit (NETCU).The words of an unnamed police source are all it takes to generate the spectre of carbon-neutral suicide bombings coming to a city-centre near you.

Apparently,

“The unit is currently monitoring blogs and internet traffic connected to a network of UK climate camps and radical environmental movements under the umbrella of Earth First! ... A senior source at the unit said it had growing evidence of a threat from eco-activists. ‘We have found statements that four-fifths of the human population has to die for other species in the world to survive. There are a number of very dedicated individuals out there and they could be dangerous to other people.’”

The piece was written by one Mark Townsend (environmental journalist of the year and co-incidentally author of a mildy-amusing tome entitled “Fifty ways to fuck the planet”) and the mysterious Nick Denning, who doesn’t even work at the Observer.

When SchNEWS contacted Mark at his desk, at first he seemed defensive and grew increasingly aggressive as the interview went on. When asked if he’d just regurgitated a police press release he said, “You don’t know anything about NETCU mate – they don’t just stick out press releases”. Which is strange given that the unit comment very publicly on the work they do – just check out their website SchNEWS 503). More recently of course we had the much publicised discovery of a ‘weapons cache’ near this year’s Climate Camp. As far as the political police are concerned the media are just another weapon in the fight against domestic unrest – and for their journalist-dupes truth balance and fact-checking just don’t come into it. When we asked Mark where the claim that Earth First! advocates the disappearance of 80% of the population had come from he said, “I don’t know – they [NETCU] said they had seen them in blogs” – How’s that for speaking truth to power?

So why the sudden appearance of the article? It contains little that could be described as news, just a load of cobbled together wild-eyed speculation. One answer is that concern for NETCU jobs in the face of the credit crunch has triggered a search for a new enemy and a broader remit. How convenient that now the animal rights (AR) movement is in ‘disarray’, a new target hovers into view.

OFF WITH HIS SUBHEAD

Another possible explanation is that the growing movement against climate change has got the state more worried than we realise, and the idea is to spread fear amongst activists that they are being heavily watched. At the moment campaigners are generally regarded in a positive light and public support is absolutely crucial for successful defiance of the state. Just look at how lightly anti-GM activists and peace protestors are treated by the authorities compared to their animal rights counterparts. Perhaps the time has come to drive a wedge between environmental activists and the general public, and of course the best way to do this is with the emotive issue of ‘violence’. Are we observing the beginning of a smear campaign?

So far it’s AR that has felt the full weight of state-orchestrated demonisation. Despite the fact that the movement has never been responsible for a single death they are routinely described as ‘terrorists’ or ‘extremists’. A political climate has been created which enables the state to crack down hard. New criminal offences are drafted targeting the movement and people are imprisoned simply for organising demos (Sean Kirtley – see SchNEWS 634). The SOCPA legislation (sec 145) banning demos aimed at disrupting ‘contractual obligations’ currently only protects ‘animal research’ organisations. A who’s who of UK media organisations have lined up to take a pop at the AR movement – Dispatches, Panorama and all the main papers have parroted the police line that AR is full of dangerous violent fanatics with an irrational belief system. High profile waves of arrests make the front page, so do the convictions, but news of acquittals languish in the back pages. The actual cause that the AR movement is fighting for receives virtually no media examination. The industrial-scale use of animals for food and vivisection is one of the great hidden evils of our lifestyle – rather than confront that, it’s obviously best to throw those that confront it into prison.

The opening of the new Oxford animal lab, albeit two years late and millions over budget, is now being hailed as a victory by vivisectionists. Of course the very fact that they were able to achieve this much is because of a huge mobilisation on the part of the state. Back in SchNEWS 590 we described how Thames Valley Police accidentally taped themselves saying that they were ‘going to wage a dirty war’ against SPEAK, with one commander adding that, “We’re going to prosecute the shit out of them.” Publicity surrounding the tape didn’t prevent the arrest and prosecution of Mel Broughton, a prominent spokesperson for the campaign (see SchNEWS 616). Last week he was acquitted of possessing an explosive substance – packets of sparklers – with intent. Two other charges led to hung jury.

Despite this, the prosecution demanded a re-trial and Mel was remanded in prison with a trial date to be fixed ‘some time next year’. NETCUs attempts to take ‘ringleaders’ of the AR off the streets by fair means or foul continues.

We don’t know what agenda Townsend’s actually working to but it’s been clear for a while that the police want an increased ability to deal with all forms of dissent. Public demonisation is a key plank in the strategy. We’ll leave the last words to John Curtin, long term AR campaigner: “We used to be regarded as Robin Hood figures for what we did – rescuing animals from a life of torture in laboratories – and now we’re terrorists – the same people doing the same things.”

Original article is at www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/eco-terrorism-earth-first-elf

NETCU Watch www.netcu.wordpress.com

Hounded

Ellie Keen — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:48:01 +0000

SCHNEWS asks who’s harassing who as hunt seeks giant exclusion zone

“If we can get this, it will be a massive victory for hunting and will set a precedent for other hunts to follow.” Simon Bonner – Countryside Alliance chairman.

“This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt to use the anti-stalking laws – which were drafted to protect vulnerable individuals – to prevent the monitoring of hunting because the hunt believe the Hunting Act does not give people the right to monitor.” – Simon Wilde

Yes, repression via the Protection from Harassment Act is back! (see SchNEWS 581). The Crawley and Horsham Foxhunt are trying to take out an injunction against local hunt monitors Simon and Jaine Wilde, along with the rest of the West Sussex Wildlife Protection Group. They’ve received the now familiar black ringbinders of ‘evidence’ from Timothy Lawson Cruttenden (aka TLC)1 and are now due in the High Court on the 15th July.

The hunt want an outright ban on “old sabbing tactics — balaclavas, sprays, whips, hunting horns and tape recorders”, or so says senior master Anthony Sandeman, “But the main thing is the continual trespass. Farmers are getting fed up with it.” Of course trespassing isn’t usually a criminal offence under English law but if the injunction goes through it will give the police a power of arrest over a huge swathe of West Sussex. The hunt also want to prevent ‘loitering on footpaths’ for the purposes of filming and, crucially, they even want to prevent hunt monitors from filming from public roads. Other clauses in the proposed injunction include an exclusion zone around the hunt kennels and a demand that monitors inform the police 24 hours before any planned activity. Breaching any of these clauses could mean arrest and prison.

To recap for those of you who weren’t paying attention: injunctions under the Harassment Act create criminal offences out of civil law. An ‘interim’ injunction – which can be obtained on the flimsiest of evidence – has the full force of law behind it. In this case something as simple as standing on a footpath taking photos could become a criminal offence, punishable by up to five years in prison.

But why are the C&H Foxhunt – adamant that they are only carrying out legal activities – so camera-shy? One hunt monitor who attends the hunt is in no doubt: “We know the C&H are hunting, they cast the hounds into woods, and frequently chase foxes. What they do bears no resemblance to drag-hunting. We’ve been watching hunts for years and we know what hunting looks like.” The League against Cruel Sports discovered the C&H breaking the hunt ban in February 2007, saying, “The reality is caught on film in horrifying detail. A fox is pursued by the Crawley and Horsham over the Sussex countryside. It seeks refuge in a small hole on the edge of a field. Twenty minutes later – and after a frantic dig out involving three men, spades and two terriers – the fox is dragged to the surface, held aloft and thrown to the waiting hounds. After ten minutes of being savaged by the hounds – encouraged by watching huntsmen – almost nothing remains of the fox.”

Of course according to Lawson-Cruttenden, “We’re not trying to stop anyone who wants legitimately to monitor the hunt, but we think that means people are entitled only to photograph the master and huntsman while they are engaged in legal hunting activities.” What this means in practice is that if anyone else at all is within the camera angle then monitors could find themselves under arrest. All others (including the C&H’s thirty-strong squad of stewards) will have the status of ‘protected persons’. Our hunt monitor told SchNEWS: “Effectively filming will be obstructed and potentially made illegal. All they’ll have to do is have a protected person with them whenever they’re up to anything dodgy and we’ll have to put our cameras away.”

Toff With Their Heads

This attempt to strangle the rights of hunt monitors to document the abuse of wildlife showcases the balance of power in the countryside. On the one hand you have some of the UK’s richest landowners/grandees – including the likes of Nicolas Soames MP, grandson of Winston Churchill – backed to the hilt by the wealth of the Countryside Alliance and the Master of Foxhounds Association, and on the other a group of slightly more down-to earth individuals who go out every weekend to try and gather evidence of the abuse of wildlife.

Unfortunately civil court cases cost money and it’s possible the landed classes may be able bulldoze this through by sheer weight of bullion. If they lose then, hey, it’s just this year’s agricultural subsidies down the pan and one less tin of caviar at Christmas – but if Simon and Jane lose then they lose their home. Of course ‘Fatty’ Soames has every reason to stay away from the lens: on the strength of film from the monitors he was fined for riding a quad bike on the public highway without a crash helmet. But with an injunction in place the monitors might have been arrested for filming in the first place, preventing any inconvenient court appearances.

The real irony is that the notorious C&H hunt are no strangers to the ‘stalking’ game themselves. Pro-hunt websites such as Moochers.org carry photos, profiles and addresses of those they refer to as ‘antis’. In recent years, monitors have captured on camera C&H huntsmaster Kim Richardson warning monitors, “You’re all fair game now … I’ve fucking told everyone” – before assaulting one of them. Richardson is the son of the late Sir Michael Richardson, who was known as ‘Mr Privatisation’, one of the highest ranking freemasons in England and a ‘darling’ of Lady Thatcher.

During the run-up to the ban, supporters of the C&H achieved a publicity coup by ramming the monitors van off the road – while it was occupied by a film crew from ‘Tonight with Trevor Mcdonald’. Hunt supporter John Hawkins was convicted of GBH after breaking a female monitor’s arm in two places on 29th January 2005. During the same incident a hunt whipper-in and steward were cautioned for assaulting the driver and stealing the group’s van keys. More recently, terrier man Jeremy Charman was fined £80 for throwing a dead rabbit at monitors in November last year. Meanwhile hunt steward Christopher Curtis received a warning for blocking footpaths – under the Harassment Act!

Simon and Jane have suffered a great deal over the years due to their commitment to the fight against bloodsports. As well as being a continuous presence at their local hunts they were leading voices supplying evidence to the various parliamentary inquiries, which eventually provided the evidence required to back an outright ban. They’ve had attacks on their home, carcasses dumped in the front garden and been the victims of repeated vicious beatings in the field.

As one hunt monitor told us: “This injunction under the Harassment Act is nothing more than an attempt by some very rich men to buy themselves an exemption to the law of the land. If granted it will be a charter for abuse of wildlife and monitors alike. A video camera is often our only way of protecting ourselves when under attack by hunt thugs. It’s also our only way of documenting the horrific treatment dished out to wildlife by this organisation which claims to be hunting legally.”

For more about Hunt Sabbing see www.hsa.enviroweb.org

1. For more about TLC and the tender loving care he puts into injunction cases against animal rights, as well as anti-arms trade and climate change activists see SchNEWS 581, 531, 509, 492, 471

Activist Jailed for 4.5 years

Ellie Keen — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Serious Implications for Freedom of Speech

Following a lengthy police investigation and an 18-week trial costing over £4.5 million, the operator of a website criticising animal testing company Sequani, has been jailed for four and a half years for organising a legal protest.

In an unprecedented case, the press were barred from reporting the trial, witnesses were bussed into the court and mobile phones were even confiscated from the public before they entered the gallery and the jury. The atmosphere was more akin to a terrorist trial than one relating to non-violent protest, which made the charges appear far more sinister than they in fact were. The choice of judge was also considered highly questionable considering he is a keen hunter.

Sean Kirtley was found guilty under Section 145 of the SOCPA law for “Interfering with the contractual relationships of a Laboratory” for allegedly organising protests at Sequani Limited and associated business associates. Police say disorder took place on a occasions during protests and claim as the organiser that Sean is responsible for any criminality that takes place.

The police claimed that during the protests individuals, not Kirtley, had been verbally abusive to staff members and that they had caused them to feel harassed. However, no-one was arrested or charged with such an offence, and prosecution witnesses testified that Kirtley had on most occasions been silent and peaceful throughout protests. Whilst Kirtley contends he did not organise protests at Sequani or its suppliers, he operated a website which effectively campaigned against the company. In a move that will alarm internet publishers and bloggers, posting details of the legal protests and information about Sequani and suppliers was considered key evidence that he was the campaign organiser.

As the supposed organiser of the legal protest, Kirtley has therefore been convicted because of supposed actions by phantom third parties that Sean had conspired with or as the law states “persons unknown”. No evidence was used in the trial that proved he had engaged in anti social behaviour on demonstrations, criminal damage or any other illegal activity.

Kirtley will now be incarcerated for far longer than most dangerous criminals. It appears that after such an expensive and extensive investigation, the CPS needed a conviction to justify such a huge expense of public money. Even then, the sentence passed was unusually severe. Child abusers, rapists and violent criminals are often given far lower sentences for far more serious crimes. In the same week, in two other high-profile cases, a man was given a similar sentence for causing the violent death of his baby son, and two brothers were jailed for only two years for committing serious assault that permanently blinded their victim.

The five other defendants were found not guilty in the, yet the Judge refused to award significant travel costs to them, totalling many thousands of pounds. Even though Pauline Burgess was found not guilty, she was bound over by Judge Ross who prohibited her from joining in the legal protests against the company for a year, and threatened her with a £1000 fine on any occasion that she does.

Aside from the unbelievable sentence, the trial has serious implications for the freedom of the internet and civil liberties in this country.

A precedent has now been set that simply publishing details or sharing information about a protest can be used as evidence that the publisher is the organiser of the event. Worse still, someone can be locked up under SOCPA for an extended period of time for simply organising a legal protest in which, according to hearsay, someone else committed an offence.

Kirtley will be lodging an appeal. Kirtley’s defence lawyer said: “This case sadly goes to show that animal rights campaigners have been singled out and ordinary criminal law principles have been contorted simply because, in the Government’s eyes, powerful commercial interests, founded on animal experimentation, are at risk from effective, open and popular protests.”

We urge the press to cover the case because this is not just an issue of an animal rights protester, whose views we understand many members of the media may not share. But as Voltaire once said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. We hope that this proves the case today.

Most importantly, the case has serious repercussions on the freedom of publishing protest information on the net and the right to protest peacefully, particularly where commercial interests are concerned.

It is also extremely relevant in the light of upcoming “terror legislation” because it demonstrates mission creep – how the SOCPA law, enacted under the pretext of protecting the public from terrorists, is now being used to silence non-violent protesters.

Notes
West Mercia Police spent 2% of their budget pursuing the investigation and the trial. In this period, violent crime and robberies increased in 06/07 compared with the previous year.

The trial has been the longest Animal Rights trial in history and has been one of the longest trials West Mercia police have been involved in.

Section 145 of the SOCPA law (2006) is related to the Interfering with the contractual relationships of a Laboratory, which is an extension of the original SOCPA legislation which was enacted in 2005 under the pretext of protecting the government from terrorism. Many believe it was aimed at curtailing the Brian Haw anti-war protest around Westminster. Whilst Haw has remained protesting because of poor drafting of the law, the act itself and criminalisation of individuals prosecuted for unapproved but peaceful protest, has cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds. The Act is increasingly being used to prevent those protesting peacefully against the government or commercial interests – peace activists, environmentalists, and animal rights activists being the main targets.

The SSAT website was closed down and a new campaign against animal experimentation at Sequani has been started by other activists – http://sequani.wordpress.com

Interviews can be arranged with the legal team and campaign press officer by contacting:

Name: Chris Dowdeswell
Tel: 01452 539673 / 07912 039069
Email: warn@riseup.net

WARN
Homepage: http://westernanimalrights.wordpress.com

Blood on the Ice

Ellie Keen — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:32:34 +0000

It seems that Canada isn’t too keen on telling the world about its annual culling of seal pups. NGO representatives and members of the British media have reported that the department of fisheries and oceans (DFO) is refusing to issue permits for visitors on the main day of the hunt, thereby preventing observers from documenting it. Photographs of blood-stained ice and seal corpses resulting from the cull are not great for its image.

The European Community passed legislation 25 years ago banning the import of fur from whitecoat harp seal pups and hooded seal pups. The ban resulted from widespread revulsion of the clubbing to death of seal pups for a product nobody needs: fur.

However, the cruelty of commercial seal hunting persists, with substantial numbers of seals being killed in Russia and Namibia, as well as Canada, where hunters have turned their attention to slightly older pups. The DFO has just announced that 275,000 pups will be killed over the next few weeks during this year’s slaughter – nearly 100,000 more than the annual toll prior to the EC ban.

Despite the 1983 ban, Europe still plays a crucial role in supporting the killing. The sealers now wait just a few days until the harp seal pups have shed their white fur. These youngsters are still unable to swim and have not yet had a solid meal. They are clubbed or shot for their fur, which can be and is imported into the EU. It is the money from this trade that convinces sealers to continue the hunt.

Yet sealing is not a full-time job. Far from it – it is carried out for only a few days each year by off-season fishermen. On average, they make less than 5% of their income from sealing.

We are talking here about a dangerous and de-humanising occupation. Many sealers have been injured or killed and many boats lost. A rich country like Canada could buy back the licenses of the sealers, giving them fair compensation to re-invest in more dignified, sustainable work. Bludgeoning baby seals to death is not a great career choice in the 21st century.

And it would be wrong to think that sealing is carried out to protect the fish stocks – even the DFO does not argue this anymore. The ecosystem in the north-west Atlantic is complex and, for much of their lives, harp seals eat a range of species, including those that prey on Atlantic cod.

The DFO does, however, try to say that the harp seal population is huge (more than 5.5 million), but bases its estimates on questionable methodology. The population could be significantly lower than this but, because the seals do not breed until they are five to six years old, we will not see the true impact of the hunt for many years to come.

The other alarming factor in recent years has been the lack of ice forming due to climate change. Harp seals rely on sea ice to breed. For millions of years they have migrated south to give birth on ice floes, free from predators. Last year, there was hardly any ice in the southern Gulf of St Lawrence and pup mortality approached 100%.

Far from calling off the hunt, the DFO issued a quota of 270,000 and the northern Gulf saw a mopping-up exercise, where every pup that could be found was killed.

Evidence of the consequent suffering has been shown to the world by groups such as the Humane Society International that, each year and under difficult circumstances, observes and films the Canadian seal hunt.

It is this evidence that prompted the European parliament to adopt my written declaration (pdf) in 2006 that called for the European commission to ban the import, export and sale of seal products. This would ensure the protection of all seals including the 80,000 cape fur seals, which are annually clubbed to death in Namibia, and the seal pups butchered in the Archangel region of northern Russia.

The commission response has been to examine the whole issue of seal killing. A European food safety authority report concludes that “there is strong evidence that … effective killing does not always occur.” How could it?

The report also recommended that “attempts should not be made to kill seals … that do not pose a stable target or where the sealer may be unbalanced (eg in adverse weather conditions, moving substrates) as it can cause avoidable pain, distress, fear and other forms of suffering.” Yet this describes the bulk of the seal hunt and also underlines why we should be taking urgent action.

My Green party colleague Carl Schlyter tried to witness the seal hunt in 2006, but was prevented from doing so by angry mobs, which prevented helicopters from taking off and wrecked one of the observation team’s vehicles. The subsequent video taken of the seal killing showed what they were keen for the world not to see: seals, shot and badly injured, gaffed and dragged onto boats, mandatory checks to ensure seals were dead rarely being carried out, and seals brutally clubbed multiple times because the first strike was ineffective.

It is clear, from countless opinion polls (and from my own constituents’ correspondence) that a total import ban is very widely supported. Belgium and the Netherlands have already banned seal imports and the US banned them way back in 1972. Until we fully ban the import of all seal products into Europe, we will have blood on our hands.

Cage the Rage

JamieSW — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:16:54 +0000

INTERNMENT IS NEW TACTIC TO DEAL WITH ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

“This is just the latest example of the state attempting to decapitate the animal rights movement – but we’re not going away” – SPEAK campaigner.

“What people outside the animal rights movement don’t seem to appreciate is that once these moves have been practised on us, they are expanded to everyone expressing dissent – just look at how PHA injunctions attacked first us, then the peace movement, then the environmentalists and finally the climate camp” – an Animal Rights Legal Advisor

The screws have been tightened on the animal rights (AR) movement yet again. In this country, and in the US, there has been a serious state attempt to deal with the strength of the animal rights movement by using an extra-legal form of internment. Currently the three most prominent activists from the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign – Greg Avery, Natasha Avery and Heather Nicholson – are all on remand, after high profile arrests back on May 1st (see SchNEWS 585). They are charged with ‘conspiracy to blackmail’. Now the same applies to the main spokesman for the SPEAK campaign, Mel Broughton.

Mel was arrested in his home at 5.30am on December 12th – and he’s been held on remand ever since on charges of arson and ‘conspiracy to blackmail’. Meanwhile campaigners against the Sequani animal labs in Ledbury are on trial for conspiracy to breach Sections 145 and 146 of the SOCPA – laws especially introduced to protect ‘animal research’ facilities.

SPEAK (www.speakcampaigns.org) are fighting against the new Oxford University primate laboratory, referred to as being of ‘national importance’ by Lord Sainsbury, unelected science minister and aggressive lobbyist for GM crops amongst other profitable er, sorry, progressive issues. Back in June, SchNEWS reported how a senior Thames Valley police officer, Inspector Shead, was caught on tape promising to ‘wage a dirty war’ against the SPEAK campaign (see SchNEWS 590) and ‘persecute’ spokesman Mel Broughton – indeed ‘to prosecute the sh*t out of him’. Now the meaning of that has become clear – the shattering of the AR movement by any means necessary. A SPEAK campaigner told us, “We know they’ve been gunning for Mel for a long time – but this isn’t a one man campaign. It is basically internment – everything about this campaign is peaceful and legal. The big picture is that the police want to smash SPEAK and SHAC.’’

Aspects of the raids, taken in context with other repression around the country, demonstrate that the police’s main strategy is disruption. During Operation Achilles – the raids which netted the SHAC organisers – huge quantities of leaflets, cash etc was seized as ‘evidence’, obviously damaging the ability of the campaign to continue. One campaigner arrested during the initial sweep told SchNEWS how the police pressured them to try and secure their Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) key to their computers. In November, police wrote letters demanding that the passwords for encrypted files on seized computers be released under threat of legal action. Campaigners refused to back down and as yet no legal action has been taken.

LOVE SHAC

The reason the state is using conspiracy charges is they like their all encompassing vagueness. Rather than having to prove specific criminal activities, a huge quantity of evidence can be produced from which ‘inferences’ can be drawn. In the SHAC case over 15,000 pages of documents have been produced, including transcripts from bugs placed in hire cars and into the wall of, what the prosecution are referring to as, ‘the SHAC house’.

Also included are transcripts of conversations made by one of the accused from prison. However there is not one shred of evidence that points to direct engagement in criminal activities (beyond such trivia as trespass). According to one source, the evidence is bizarre – “it includes family photos – loads of stuff that hasn’t got anything to do with animal rights or demos or anything…”

The trial is expected to last six months – so even if the three are acquitted they will have spent the best part of two years unable to take part in any effective campaigning. If they are convicted it will pave the way to repeat the tactics with other campaign groups – except those couched in the vaguest non-threatening terms – and especially those that are actually effective.

“The danger of this sort of accusation is that simply running a campaign could be described as blackmail. Obviously a blackmailer’s threats do not have to be illegal, simply the suggestion that if you don’t do X we will do Y could be construed as blackmail” (AR legal advisor) – i.e. the very act of organising demos could become a very serious criminal offence, punishable by years inside. So once more we see laws drafted to protect individuals being used (or twisted) to protect corporations. SHAC has to be the legally most watertight campaign in the UK. Everything they publish is checked by a barrister beforehand. As our source told us, “ They’ve got masses of evidence of demos being organised of course but most of them are organised with the police! Every campaign has a target – even Greenpeace send out action e-mail alerts! How can what we do be described as blackmail?”

The case of the Sequani Six is now entering its second week in Birmingham Crown Court. Sequani are a vivisection laboratory based in Ledbury, Hertfordshire and are the latest beneficiaries of a law specifically targeted at those who campaign for animal rights. Six protesters, including one 80-year-old woman are charged with conspiracy to “interfere with contractual relationships so as to harm animal research organisation” under section 145 of SOCPA.

To add insult to injury the judge in the trial has admitted that he regularly enjoys hunting – but we’re sure he won’t let that unduly prejudice him.

It has been suggested by top cop Anton Setchell (ACPO National Coordinator for Domestic Extremism) that the SOCPA laws, which effectively prohibit demos outside establishments connected with animal research, were not drafted widely enough. He wants them expanded to cover any groups that engage in sustained campaigning. The National Extremism Tactical Co-ordinating Unit’s website (www.netcu.org.uk) says, “The term ‘domestic extremism’ applies to unlawful action that is part of a protest or campaign. It is most often associated with ‘single-issue’ protests, such as animal rights, anti-war, anti-globalisation and anti-GM (genetically modified) crops.”. Alarmingly section 149 of SOCPA allows the secretary of state to declare any business to be the equivalent of an animal research establishment without going back to Parliament.

Despite the full agencies of the state being bent on the movement’s destruction, with widespread abuse of public order law and the shutting down of animal rights info stalls – they’re not going away! Demos continue despite police intimidation. Vivisectors and those who deal with them are still firmly in the movement’s sights and a glance at the websites demonstrate the extent to which this struggle is still gaining in strength, and going global. As a SHAC activist told us “They think that by taking out a few key people they can stop our movement but for every two they take away there will be four to take their place. The public support has been amazing…”

Further reading:

- SPEAK www.speakcampaigns.org

- SHAC www.shac.net

- STOPSequani www.stopsequani.co.uk