Skip to content or view screen version

3 Arrested for Entering Faslane Nuclear Base

plunk | 04.09.2007 09:22 | Faslane | Anti-militarism

3 women have been arrested this morning (4 September 2007) inside the high security fences at the Trident nuclear submarine base after entering the base to get further information on the weapons of mass destruction deployed by the UK government in contravention of Scottish and International Law. According to the police, the women, who were acting to uphold the law, are being charged under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which is increasingly being used to prevent peaceful protests at sensitive sites, including Britain’s nuclear bases.

Lavinia Crossley, Tansy Newman Turner and Emma Bateman, all part of a group calling themselves the ‘Faslane 365 Serious Organised Crime Investigation and Prevention Team’, went into the base to find evidence on the rules of engagement, policies and procedures for the deployment, targeting and use of nuclear weapons and to discover what information is provided to personnel about the legal, safety and security implications of their work on Trident. Their action kicks off the last month of the Faslane 365 year-long blockade, in which almost 1000 people from all over the world have been arrested.

In carrying the nonviolent resistance to the illegal deployment and renewal of Trident into the submarine base itself, the women took this action because they consider that the deployment of Trident constitutes preparation for a war crime. This violation of Scottish and international law is compounded by the UK Government’s policies of deployment, constituting an ever-present threat to use Trident. The women’s action was against both the current deployment and the government’s stated intention to replace the current Trident-carrying Vanguard-class submarines with new ballistic missile submarines, in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Britain is a Party.

“Nuclear weapons are immoral and illegal,” said Lavinia Crossley (22) from Bradford. “I feel I have to act because if I do not, who will? The Government continues to cover up the illegality of these weapons and instead pretend that we are the criminals.”

Emma Bateman (40), from Leicester, said, “It is ridiculous to threaten Iran with sanctions for possibly wanting nuclear weapons when we have actual WMD here and ready to be used.”

Tansy Newman Turner (21), also from Leicester, said, “Nuclear weapons are not much use against terrorism and this legislation is an admission that Faslane is a target for terrorists, thus putting us in more danger. Nuclear weapons pose a threat and danger to us, not a protection or deterrent.”

plunk
- Homepage: http://www.faslane365.org

Comments

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments

dupe?

04.09.2007 11:45

of post below?

??


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

HOWEVER

04.09.2007 12:24

(if you think that this is a criticism of the demonstration, you aren't reading clearly --- it's about accepting what we choose to do and the justifications for that HONESTLY -- being honest with ourselves)

As I understand it, the arguments here are that:

a) The entry to search for evidence of criminal activity is justified by the possibility that such evidence might be found. Even if no evididence is found, but especially if evidence is found, those breaking in should not be subject to sanctions.
b) Evidence so found might be used for something.

Conclusion from a & b --- police (or anybody else) need no warrants. They can simply come in and search anywhere they suspect evidence of illegal activity might be found. Evidence found in thios way can be used in law. And (whether or not that is the case) theyy aren't subject to any sanctions for wrongful behavior.

c) The "illegal" in a & b is defined by what those doing this believe SHOULD be illegal or what they believe to be illegal court rulings to the contrary.

Conclusion from c --- the police (or anybody else) acting as a & b above need not concern themselves with that IS illegal. So if they they decide that your activities SHOULD be illegal, they are justified.

Are you SURE you want to go down those roads? Again I repeat this is NOT intended as direct criticism of the demonstration actions -- but maybe alittle more time needs to be spent upon clarifying the justifications of WHY we take certain actions.

Mike Novack
mail e-mail: stepbystpefarm mtdata.com


Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments