EDO activists in Court again.
doopa | 28.04.2005 17:16 | Smash EDO | Anti-militarism | Iraq | South Coast
After their High Court appearance earlier in the month 1, and the adjournment then, 10 EDO activists where again at the High Court on Friday the 22nd of April to have their case heard. Representatives of the Arms Manufacturer EDO/MBM technologies have sought an injunction to effectively prevent protests outside their premises in Brighton. The proposed injunction would prevent any artificial noise or amplification devices from being in the “exclusion zone”. This effectively amounts to a private corporation buying its own private martial laws enforceable by the police.
This time the court was told that an interim injunction would be a draconian breach of civil liberties for an undefined and potentially unlimited number of people. The injunction would ban protest at EDO without any evidence being presented. No decision has been made by the courts yet, although it is expected soon.
The company allege that they are the victims of a campaign of intimidation by the activists. They are trying to apply anti-stalking legislation to the anti-militarism protests in order to stifle free speech and the right to assembly outside their factory 2. Although the injunction is a civil injunction, breaking the injunction would result in criminal convictions. The police have only been able to prosecute protesters for relatively minor public offences up until now, and they hope that with this injunction they will be able to silence the protesters. The law firm representing EDO are Lawson-Cruttenden who represented Huntington Life Sciences in their attempts to obtain injunctions against animal rights activists (HLS). This law firm have pioneered the use of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 from a measure designed to safeguard private citizens to a corporate charter used against inconvenient protesters. Once exclusion zones are in place they call on the police to enforce the orders. The orders ban “artificial or musical noise or using anything to amplify sound or using loudhailers”. The orders also ban the photography or videotaping of the EDO factory. The order bans the named individuals but perhaps more worryingly by association bans any individuals from gathering within the half mile exclusion zone, which includes a university. Protests would only be “allowed” for two and a half hours on Thursday afternoons, but with significant caveats; such as only ten protesters being allowed to gather.
EDO manufactures weapons carriage and release equipment, and has contracts to supply components to the RAF's Paveway bombs, scanning motors and drive electronics for the EuroFighters PIRATE (Passive Infra-Red Airborne Track Equipment – no we didn't make it up) system, and its US counterpart provides components for the US Air Force (3). The company has donated to both political parties in the USA, presumably lobbying for peace through superior firepower. The Paveway series bombs, according to Raytheon, accounted for over half of all bombs dropped on Iraq since the invasion. Therefore, these bombs have been involved in the murder of the 98,000 innocent civilians killed where the “primary cause” of violent death was “coalition air-strikes”(4). This review states that most innocent civilians killed where women and children, not men of military age as the coalition press officers state. Estimates on the death toll vary, but as Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch notes it will not be possible “to come up with anything better than a good guess at the final civilian cost”. What is clear is that coalition forces have used materials supplied by EDO technologies to murder civilians in an illegal war in Iraq, and as such the company is responsible. These figures also have no way measure the indirect effects of the bombing campaign on infant mortality and other forms of preventable death, resulting from inadequate access to clean water for example.
“We felt that after the blatant illegality of the war in Iraq that it was time that discontent over the way that the arms trade fuels conflict around the world was brought back to the factory floor” - Smash EDO leaflet. The campaigners believe that this company should not be allowed to operate in Brighton “as Brighton and Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City. The mission statement of the UN Peace Caucus supports 'reduction of military spending and production', yet companies like EDO MBM need increased military spending to continue to generate profits for their shareholders. How can the progressive ideals of the Peace Caucus which Brighton and Hove City Council are supposed to be promoting be reconciled with the presence of an arms company doing business in our city?” (5).
The protests have been going on for some time (6, 7, 8, 9) and have involved a variety of methods of protesting the EDO factory from roof top occupations(10) to silent vigils (11), phone blockades (12) and even letter writing (13). The protesters come from a variety of backgrounds, reflected in the diversity of protests. The protesters marked the international day of action against the arms trade by inspecting the arms manufacturers site on March 21st of this year – (14).
Contact addresses:
http://www.smashedo.org.uk/
smashedo@hotmail.com
smashedopress@yahoo.co.uk
The company allege that they are the victims of a campaign of intimidation by the activists. They are trying to apply anti-stalking legislation to the anti-militarism protests in order to stifle free speech and the right to assembly outside their factory 2. Although the injunction is a civil injunction, breaking the injunction would result in criminal convictions. The police have only been able to prosecute protesters for relatively minor public offences up until now, and they hope that with this injunction they will be able to silence the protesters. The law firm representing EDO are Lawson-Cruttenden who represented Huntington Life Sciences in their attempts to obtain injunctions against animal rights activists (HLS). This law firm have pioneered the use of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 from a measure designed to safeguard private citizens to a corporate charter used against inconvenient protesters. Once exclusion zones are in place they call on the police to enforce the orders. The orders ban “artificial or musical noise or using anything to amplify sound or using loudhailers”. The orders also ban the photography or videotaping of the EDO factory. The order bans the named individuals but perhaps more worryingly by association bans any individuals from gathering within the half mile exclusion zone, which includes a university. Protests would only be “allowed” for two and a half hours on Thursday afternoons, but with significant caveats; such as only ten protesters being allowed to gather.
EDO manufactures weapons carriage and release equipment, and has contracts to supply components to the RAF's Paveway bombs, scanning motors and drive electronics for the EuroFighters PIRATE (Passive Infra-Red Airborne Track Equipment – no we didn't make it up) system, and its US counterpart provides components for the US Air Force (3). The company has donated to both political parties in the USA, presumably lobbying for peace through superior firepower. The Paveway series bombs, according to Raytheon, accounted for over half of all bombs dropped on Iraq since the invasion. Therefore, these bombs have been involved in the murder of the 98,000 innocent civilians killed where the “primary cause” of violent death was “coalition air-strikes”(4). This review states that most innocent civilians killed where women and children, not men of military age as the coalition press officers state. Estimates on the death toll vary, but as Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch notes it will not be possible “to come up with anything better than a good guess at the final civilian cost”. What is clear is that coalition forces have used materials supplied by EDO technologies to murder civilians in an illegal war in Iraq, and as such the company is responsible. These figures also have no way measure the indirect effects of the bombing campaign on infant mortality and other forms of preventable death, resulting from inadequate access to clean water for example.
“We felt that after the blatant illegality of the war in Iraq that it was time that discontent over the way that the arms trade fuels conflict around the world was brought back to the factory floor” - Smash EDO leaflet. The campaigners believe that this company should not be allowed to operate in Brighton “as Brighton and Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City. The mission statement of the UN Peace Caucus supports 'reduction of military spending and production', yet companies like EDO MBM need increased military spending to continue to generate profits for their shareholders. How can the progressive ideals of the Peace Caucus which Brighton and Hove City Council are supposed to be promoting be reconciled with the presence of an arms company doing business in our city?” (5).
The protests have been going on for some time (6, 7, 8, 9) and have involved a variety of methods of protesting the EDO factory from roof top occupations(10) to silent vigils (11), phone blockades (12) and even letter writing (13). The protesters come from a variety of backgrounds, reflected in the diversity of protests. The protesters marked the international day of action against the arms trade by inspecting the arms manufacturers site on March 21st of this year – (14).
Contact addresses:
http://www.smashedo.org.uk/
smashedo@hotmail.com
smashedopress@yahoo.co.uk
doopa
e-mail:
doopa@aktivix.org
Comments
Hide the following comment
Here's the press release for the day, more on the interim injunction later
05.05.2005 15:45
Anti war campaigners won a major victory in the High Court on Friday 29th April. Arms manufacturer EDO MBM had applied for an
injunction, under anti-stalking laws, to restrict protest outside their
Brighton factory. The order sought by the corporation would have created
an exclusion zone, where protests would only be allowed on Thursday
afternoons for two hours, with a maximum of 10 silent protestors.
The defendants refused to negotiate the terms of the injunction, in order
to avoid lending legitimacy to the proceedings. In stark contrast to the
demands of EDO, Judge Gross ruled that in the run up to the trial an
“interim” injunction would not restrict the timing, frequency, or numbers,
allowed on demonstrations. He threw out 11 of 15 draconian terms,
describing them at one point as 'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.' In
explaining his refusal to impose most of the conditions Judge Gross said,
“Freedom of expression is a right jealously guarded in English law”.
However campaigners continue to insist that any use of the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997, (originally introduced to protect people from
stalking), is a gross violation of their civil liberties.
One of the defendants said afterwards, “EDO have made a great mistake in
bringing this action to court. Their contempt for human rights has been
exposed to the general public, and even at this stage of the trial, the
judge has effectively demolished their proposed exclusion zone. EDO are
proud of their role as spear carriers for an illegal war, but where is the
injunctive relief for the people of Iraq?”
Campaigners are looking forward to a swift trial, where they will expose
EDO's complicity in war crimes and Sussex Police’s attack on the right to
protest.
edosmasher