EDO DROP LEGAL BOMBSHELL
SmashEDO | 27.03.2005 16:14 | Anti-militarism | London | South Coast
ARMS DEALERS DROP LEGAL BOMBSHELL ON PROTESTERS
A number of Brighton anti-war activists from the Smash Edo campaign were presented
with a summons to attend the High Court on 14th April.
EDO/MBM Ltd, who manufacture bomb components for F-16s used in the Iraq war, are
seeking an injunction to prevent campaigners from protesting outside their factory
in Brighton. The injunction is sought by solicitors firm Lawson-Cruttenden & Co.
The summons follows the recent acquittal of three activists accused of aggravated
trespass on EDO’s premises.
EDO also recently withdrew a threatened libel action against Indymedia over being
named as “warmongers”.
It is believed that the injunction served under the 1997 Protection from Harassment
Act (originally designed to protect women from stalkers) is the first of its kind
directed at activists outside of the animal rights movement.
If granted it would create an “exclusion zone” outside of EDO’s premises on Home
Farm Industrial Estate as well as banning any protests outside homes of directors
and employees of the company (over 160 addresses)! The company will allow protests
to take place on Thursday afternoons for two hours provided those protesting number
no more than ten and are silent.
The blanket nature of the injunction sought could affect hundreds of people involved
in the Peace Movement in Brighton and would in effect be a control order, placed
against “persons unknown”.
Tom Gittoes named on the summons said “I will fight this injunction. It’s sickening
that in a UN Peace Messenger City, the local police and an arms company are
colluding to prevent peaceful protest. This is typical of EDO’s contempt for human
rights. They’ve used every trick in the book including covert photography and
serving the summons on a Bank Holiday weekend when we can’t get legal advice.”
Lorna Marcham (also named) added “It is clear that this injunction is an attempt to
strangle our right to protest, EDO don’t want attention drawn to their role in the
death of civilians in the illegal war in Iraq”
Contacts
Press Inquiries: Andrew 0787 5708873
www.smashedo.bpec.org
Notes for Journalists
Lawson-Cruttenden & Co, a solicitors firm have been instrumental in the development
of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 from a measure designed to safeguard
individuals to a corporate charter to make inconvenient protest illegal. They have
pioneered to use of injunctions to create large “exclusion zones”. They have secured
numerous injunctions against anti-vivisection protestors.
EDO/MBM Technologies Ltd are a UK subsidiary of huge U.S arms conglomerate EDO Corp,
which was recently named No. 10 in the Forbes list of 100 fastest growing companies.
A number of Brighton anti-war activists from the Smash Edo campaign were presented
with a summons to attend the High Court on 14th April.
EDO/MBM Ltd, who manufacture bomb components for F-16s used in the Iraq war, are
seeking an injunction to prevent campaigners from protesting outside their factory
in Brighton. The injunction is sought by solicitors firm Lawson-Cruttenden & Co.
The summons follows the recent acquittal of three activists accused of aggravated
trespass on EDO’s premises.
EDO also recently withdrew a threatened libel action against Indymedia over being
named as “warmongers”.
It is believed that the injunction served under the 1997 Protection from Harassment
Act (originally designed to protect women from stalkers) is the first of its kind
directed at activists outside of the animal rights movement.
If granted it would create an “exclusion zone” outside of EDO’s premises on Home
Farm Industrial Estate as well as banning any protests outside homes of directors
and employees of the company (over 160 addresses)! The company will allow protests
to take place on Thursday afternoons for two hours provided those protesting number
no more than ten and are silent.
The blanket nature of the injunction sought could affect hundreds of people involved
in the Peace Movement in Brighton and would in effect be a control order, placed
against “persons unknown”.
Tom Gittoes named on the summons said “I will fight this injunction. It’s sickening
that in a UN Peace Messenger City, the local police and an arms company are
colluding to prevent peaceful protest. This is typical of EDO’s contempt for human
rights. They’ve used every trick in the book including covert photography and
serving the summons on a Bank Holiday weekend when we can’t get legal advice.”
Lorna Marcham (also named) added “It is clear that this injunction is an attempt to
strangle our right to protest, EDO don’t want attention drawn to their role in the
death of civilians in the illegal war in Iraq”
Contacts
Press Inquiries: Andrew 0787 5708873
www.smashedo.bpec.org
Notes for Journalists
Lawson-Cruttenden & Co, a solicitors firm have been instrumental in the development
of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 from a measure designed to safeguard
individuals to a corporate charter to make inconvenient protest illegal. They have
pioneered to use of injunctions to create large “exclusion zones”. They have secured
numerous injunctions against anti-vivisection protestors.
EDO/MBM Technologies Ltd are a UK subsidiary of huge U.S arms conglomerate EDO Corp,
which was recently named No. 10 in the Forbes list of 100 fastest growing companies.
SmashEDO
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
Same as Bayer injunction last year.
27.03.2005 20:37
n
Magic Moments
27.03.2005 21:29
How did he get where he is? Oh yea I remember by making bombs to kill people. Certainly not through his brains.
Reckless Eric
Moot point
27.03.2005 21:47
animal rights activists as well as anti-GM ones. The latest EDO Harrassment ACT injunction does not name any animal rights groups but only anti-war/arms trade groups so it can be said to be a first in that no animal rights groups are involved.I think this is correct.
But yes, you do still have a point, and why the SmashEDO press release people continue not
to acknowledge the Bayer case is odd.Maybe they still haven't heard about it.
.
Congratulations
27.03.2005 21:49
This case will be followed with interest around the world. Good luck.
Carol Singer
KNOWLEDGE OF BAYER INJUNCTION
28.03.2005 10:54
We know about the Bayer injunction of course. However it was a) directed against a campaign which had already won i.e Bayer were just about to pull out of GM in the UK b) SHAC were also named on that injunction, meaning that in the authorities' minds at least the Stop Bayer campaign was associated with animal rights activists.
Hence we've chosen to call this the first injunction under the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 , which has been directed at an active non-animal rights campaign.
Hopefully we'll be able to call into question the mechanism of the injunctions themselves.
Unlike animal rights activists we haven't been demonised by the press for years, this could be our crucial advantage.
Andrew Beckett
e-mail:
smashedopress@yahoo.co.uk
Devide and rule
29.03.2005 14:26
It's a dangerous game to play, hyping up how far removed from animal rights these protesters are. The bayer injunction (read it) was totally related to the anti-gm campaign and the shac stuff was mentioned by the injunction simply as a way of forcing an association between the anti-gm campaigns and animal rights in the minds of those that read it. This gave the excuse to the media to mention animal rights 'extremists' in the same sentance as the fluffy-everyone-loves-them anti-gm bods. Groups named in the injunction were pretty random (some didn't even exist and other key players in the campaign excaped mention completly) however this didn't matter cause when an injunction is in place the police are given new highly unaccountable rights to arrest pretty much anyone once they have informed you of the terms of the injunction either verbally or in writting.
These injunctions are totally illegal (under the human rights act) but sofar legal challenges to them have only been partically succesful. By starting with using them on animal rights activists they have conveniently assured that bad precidents have been set. Had they gone after the GM campaign first, I believe the courts may have overtuned the entire injunctions on the basis of the HRA but with the HLS stuff they simple tweaked the wording to bypass the problems it raised in terms of rights of assembly and expression.
Anyway... be careful trying to distance youself from the animal right groups. By being devided we are weaker. First they try things out on them, then they use them on everyine else!
x
Defend the Right to Protest
30.03.2005 00:19
The right to protest has been under attack for the last year or so in Manchester, with Greater Manchester Police, and Manchester City Council focusing on M&S Picket, which has been under constantant attack recently from Zionists. In 2003, 2 members of the picket were convincted for Blocking the highway, with a TABLE, behind a bench, and inside metal railings. Then in December the picket was banned for 5 weeks, under section 14 of the public order act 1986. 9 people were arrested on the 4 dec. This is just an example of how the state is preventing people from protesting.
What is happening with the Smash Edo campain, which i have been on, is possible the most serious attack on the right to protest in Briton recently. Not because it's on nation level, but locally, because this is how the police will set case law top completly ban protests.
Defend the Right to Protest!
Defend the Smash Edo Campain!
Defend the Manchester M&S 9!
Defend the Right to Protest in Parliment Square!
If anyone has any other protests that are under attack, or are banned, tell us NOW! we need to act now before it is too late!
Defend the Right to Protest
bayer correction
31.03.2005 14:02
?