UP THE INJUNCTION!
gm bn | 09.02.2004 20:40 | Bio-technology
According to a their PR department, Bayer has totally respect for the rights of groups and individuals to "promote the discussion of current issues" such as GM crops, but "wishes to ensure that any protesting activity stays within the law and does not involve the harassment or intimidation of its employees".
And as if to demonstrate their respect for the rights of people to protest by lawful means, they obtained an injunction that effectively turns previously lawful acts into criminal offences.
And as if to demonstrate their respect for the rights of people to protest by lawful means, they obtained an injunction that effectively turns previously lawful acts into criminal offences.
Bayer obtained an interim injunction against six named individuals and six supposed organisations under the terms of the Protection from Harassment Act.
This temporary injunction is in place untill 11th Febuary when a court will hear arguments for and against making it permanent.
The injunction places severe restrictions on certain group’s and individual’s right to protest and their freedom of expression. It also has far reaching implications for those not personally mentioned or connected with the 'organisations' named.
This is the first time the Act has been used against anti-GM campaigners. However similar injunctions have been used to restrict animal rights campaigns. Indeed the Protection from Harassment Act was first used against animal rights protesters dispite having been originally trumpeted as a way to protect women from stalkers.
When corporations resort to the courts to stifle legitimate protest they often find it back fires on them. The classic example being McDonald's and the infamous McLibel case (see www.mcspotlight.org) that has been refered to as the bigest PR cock-up of all time.
Huntingdon Live Sciences have also found that the use of injunctions has merely increased economic sabotage against their property. Many people see such covert tactics as lower risk compared to getting arrested for holding a placard outside offices!
Injunctions often also inject new life into campaigns as new people feel outraged by the blatent repression and fresh creativity and imagination explore new tactics in responce.
To find out more, check out the Stop Bayer GM Crops website on www.stopbayergm.org
http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news436.htm
http://www.bayer.co.uk/legalinjunction/
This temporary injunction is in place untill 11th Febuary when a court will hear arguments for and against making it permanent.
The injunction places severe restrictions on certain group’s and individual’s right to protest and their freedom of expression. It also has far reaching implications for those not personally mentioned or connected with the 'organisations' named.
This is the first time the Act has been used against anti-GM campaigners. However similar injunctions have been used to restrict animal rights campaigns. Indeed the Protection from Harassment Act was first used against animal rights protesters dispite having been originally trumpeted as a way to protect women from stalkers.
When corporations resort to the courts to stifle legitimate protest they often find it back fires on them. The classic example being McDonald's and the infamous McLibel case (see www.mcspotlight.org) that has been refered to as the bigest PR cock-up of all time.
Huntingdon Live Sciences have also found that the use of injunctions has merely increased economic sabotage against their property. Many people see such covert tactics as lower risk compared to getting arrested for holding a placard outside offices!
Injunctions often also inject new life into campaigns as new people feel outraged by the blatent repression and fresh creativity and imagination explore new tactics in responce.
To find out more, check out the Stop Bayer GM Crops website on www.stopbayergm.org
http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news436.htm http://www.bayer.co.uk/legalinjunction/
gm bn