Last week in Daily Grist, we reported that BAA, the company that owns Heathrow Airport, had requested an injunction against protesters planning a weeklong Camp for Climate Action in mid-August. The original request was so badly worded that it sounded like 5 million people would be kept away from the airport, but a judge granted a narrower version today.
The judge, while citing the risk that "a terrorist group may use the disruption caused by the protesters to perpetrate a terrorist act," said peaceful protest is AOK, and organizers of the climate camp say it will go on as planned. So did BAA "win," as all the headlines are screaming? Or did it just waste a bunch of time?
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Flat
farnishk Posted 10:23 pm
06 Aug 2007
Furthermore, the injunction only slightly extends existing English trespass laws, and retains the right to protest. I sometimes feel lucky to be British, with a far more liberal right to protest than my colleagues in the USA and even more draconianly controlled authorities.
The real issue here, though, is that the law in all "civilized" nations is heavily skewed in favour of land ownership, property and wealth. A rapist will spend - on average - far less time in jail (if at all) than a tax evader or corporate embezzler. A tree-sitter does not have the right to tree-sit if the ancient forest she is protecting is being destroyed by a logging company acting within the law.
We need to recognised this appalling imbalance in the law and make others aware of it. The law does not protect the planet, it has to be changed, or ignored.
Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
Permalink