Skip to content or view screen version

NETCU using ASBO to prevent SHAC protest

http://www.wdail.org/ | 17.04.2009 10:23 | Animal Liberation

SHAC london activist banned from SHAC protests by represive ASBO

An organiser of SHAC demos has had an ASBO imposed on him preventing him from attending demo's with less than 300 people present - so no SHAC demo's.

He is also not allowed to carry or use cameras or megaphones at any time!

When will this end and who is going to be next?

http://www.wdail.org/
- Homepage: http://www.wdail.org/

Comments

Hide the following 7 comments

appeal the ASBO

17.04.2009 10:42

has this organizer appealed the ASBO? There is a precedent for having ASBOs being erroneously handed out to activists (DESI, 2005) and the appeal won and the ASBOs were quashed. In this case the judge used the character statements from the defendants as proof that, because of their good character, they will undoubtedly be attending demos and participating in direct action in the future, hence a preemptive use of an ASBO to deter the defendants from future action. An ASBO, technically, should only be given on the grounds that the defendant has been engaged in a repeated action, and that that action can be shown to be causing harassment and distress to the public. Not mild annoyance or discomfort.

anon


Publish and be dammed

17.04.2009 11:26

The person should put a copy of the ASBO here and in other places. While they should blank out their personal information the names of any public servants involved in issuing the ASBO should be left in. They are public servants and their activities must always be open to scrutiny by the public.


A N Other


the magistrate must like BIG Demonstrations

17.04.2009 14:34

If the ASBO is to prevent the protester from attending SHAC demos of less than 300 people then the demos will just have to grow to over 300 people.

Twiggs


Clever stipulations

17.04.2009 18:58

Some devious minds at work here - this neatly sidesteps any allegations that this criminalises protest BUT at the same time limiting protest to mainstream issues.

Oh - and this ASBO seems to be for life!

CPS


the magistrate must hate small demonstrations

18.04.2009 00:27

It's not a case of getting demos over 300, this has happened each year for SHAC since 1999. For example this year's 'City Shakedown', the year before with the Novartis march and before then with the national march attracting over 700 people.

The problem is a prominent shactivist is ONLY allowed to attend these events which are either annually or bi-annually. The very fact s/he's allowed to go to these marches shows how it's not the big demos that makes the difference, instead just swelling support for those who can make the difference with small demos and other direct action. As Twiggs said, if the magistrates love big demonstrations, then we need more small ones!

The Issues: Banning Protest

The stupidity is not only in a life ASBO (created for the SHAC 7) but that s/he has to gamble by going to marches and risk breaching bail conditions, with is left to police to count/estimate numbers. For this reason, I would love to see any evidence on how this individual could breach ASBO conditions for attending a march of say 250 people. How can a demonstrator be told apart from the press, or from passers by, what MAKES these numbers? It is estimated, prejudged, or calculated? There's no logical way in which this ASBO could hold substance, quite clearly. Is it when 300+ have the same opinion?

It all comes down to the same state concept - you can demo in mass, but not as grassroots groups specifically targeting who you want to. The concept is that its fine to want to close companies, as long as you do it the way the state knows won't work, and your not actively trying to close the lab (conspiracy to blackmail) but advocating for its closure through reform.

If they get round to digging up history, they'll claim all legal campaigns that closed 32 breeders in the UK were illegal - because it was through radically campaigning for their closures, not campaigning to 'advocate' their closures through reformist measures.

Through state eyes, financially damaging an industry directly is illegal regardless of the way you 'legally' do it. These are the kind of laws slave masters would of wanted, quite obviously, its just recognising the comparisons. While a demo may be legal one day, the consequences of its effect may be illegal in the future. Read the SHAC 7 case!

I'll reiterate for anyone confused - its fine to demo, as long as its in the way they want you to - acting in mass to influence the state. Why do think the cops love the SWP, STWC and co?

Furthermore, why the news that someone's right to demonstrate has been banned for life for doing nothing (for the 8th time) isn't on the promoted newswire I'll never understand. I hope admins aren't wondering why 114 got arrested this year instead of next? It's because you aren't highlighting those who suffered similar fates before hand, then for the struggles that interest you the "HOLY SHIT - NO WAY" scenario gets played out. Don't bother saying its a poor article, so are most that initially announce repression on other topics - even two liners.

Finally, I would like to thank all admins who do care, it's just a shame others can't be inspired by your support when you're not around! Increased unity is the key here!!

veganarchist


Correction

18.04.2009 22:19

He's not 'the organiser' of SHAC demos, just part of a small group that does demos together. SHAC demos will continue.

He himself can go on SHAC demos - just not if there are less than 100 people and there's a megaphone being used so he'll just have to do quieter demos.

If there are more than 100 he can go even if there is a megaphone in use. How kind of the cops to allow this!

He can't take photos or films of the demos or while on the demos and if he does demoes against a certain fur shop, he has to be on the other side of the road from the shop... despite the fact shop workers have previously complained that he "stares at them" through the windows... not illegal and not true anyway!

Corrector


Original post & corrections

19.04.2009 22:18

I comment as a friend of the affected person who has discussed it with him recently. The original post is obviously done by police as it was posted before knowledge of the ASBO was public and they are just taking the piss by using the wdail address. The basic details are wrong (it's 100, not 300) but other than that it's basically accurate.

Commenters shouldn't get too carried away about SHAC in this instance. SHAC is a campaign that he is involved in, but this is among many others. The only specific company listed in the ASBO is a shop that sells fur - nothing to do with SHAC. It is an attack on all freedom of speech where irrelevant 'evidence' of non-crimes has been used to destroy an individual's human right to protest by criminalising exactly what the European Convention on Human Rights is there to protect.

A full appeal will be launched with very strong grounds, where this ASBO will be fought and defeated.

Activist