Novartis threaten the right to protest banners and costumes
slade | 23.10.2009 17:57 | SHAC | Animal Liberation
On Wednesday 28th Novartis are back in court trying to extend their injunction against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. You may think that this is just an animal rights issue, but the new terms that Novartis are seeking will set a frightening precedent that will affect everyone's right to protest.
The background is that SHAC are holding a march against animal testing in Horsham on 31st October, which will end up at Novartis' premises there. SHAC are only permitted to have one such large scale demonstration per year. The last such one was in April 2008. The theme of this years march is naturally Halloween - given the timing.
On the Tuesday just gone, at a routine hearing, Novartis and their solicitor, the now infamous Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden (well known for claiming to protect peoples rights to protest but is behind some of their most draconian terms - remember the EDO and Heathrow injunctions) sought to introduce terms that would among other things:
1. forbid protestors from wearing any sort of face covering, in particular animal costumes, skull masks and all that. It is so worded that even people covering up against the cold would be affected.
2. force protestors to obey the bylaws of Horsham, regardless of whether they are compatible with the human rights act. This would stop people using megaphones on demos or hang banners.
3. very scarily try to restrict the right of protestors to have slogans and pictures on their banners. Images of vivisected animals would be banned. Slogans about how Novartis have paid Huntingdon Life Sciences to kill and murder animals for them, or pointing out that drugs from pharmaceutical companies are among the biggest killers in hospitals (just look at the figures for "adverse drug reactions") would all be banned by this injunction. Underlying this is also an attempt to have the name of Novartis removed from banners so they can avoid criticism.
They had hoped to force it through on Tuesday but Judge Sweeney would not allow it as they had not produced any evidence to support it. He gave them until next week to produce proper reasons why they should be allowed to get it.
Lawson-Cruttenden is going so far as to say that Halloween's "dark side" is the reason for why Novartis are so worried. However, what starts here, as has been regularly seen, will steadily creep into other areas of protest. What seems innocuous here will be used again and again to muzzle other protests. This is the thin edge of the wedge and if it is allowed through then it will threaten all free speech. Imagine not being able to name companies you are protesting against; imagine if you cannot show images of the horrors of war; imagine if your human rights were simply stripped away by right wing councils. All is possible.
Will Liberty do anything - unfortunately not, as they have been happily co-opted by the Vivisection lobby, happy to meet with the front group "Victims of Animal Rights Extremism" as was reported in a government report over the summer, but will not touch grassroots protestors with a barge-pole. Its down to grassroots groups yet again to protect basic rights we all took for granted.
On the Tuesday just gone, at a routine hearing, Novartis and their solicitor, the now infamous Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden (well known for claiming to protect peoples rights to protest but is behind some of their most draconian terms - remember the EDO and Heathrow injunctions) sought to introduce terms that would among other things:
1. forbid protestors from wearing any sort of face covering, in particular animal costumes, skull masks and all that. It is so worded that even people covering up against the cold would be affected.
2. force protestors to obey the bylaws of Horsham, regardless of whether they are compatible with the human rights act. This would stop people using megaphones on demos or hang banners.
3. very scarily try to restrict the right of protestors to have slogans and pictures on their banners. Images of vivisected animals would be banned. Slogans about how Novartis have paid Huntingdon Life Sciences to kill and murder animals for them, or pointing out that drugs from pharmaceutical companies are among the biggest killers in hospitals (just look at the figures for "adverse drug reactions") would all be banned by this injunction. Underlying this is also an attempt to have the name of Novartis removed from banners so they can avoid criticism.
They had hoped to force it through on Tuesday but Judge Sweeney would not allow it as they had not produced any evidence to support it. He gave them until next week to produce proper reasons why they should be allowed to get it.
Lawson-Cruttenden is going so far as to say that Halloween's "dark side" is the reason for why Novartis are so worried. However, what starts here, as has been regularly seen, will steadily creep into other areas of protest. What seems innocuous here will be used again and again to muzzle other protests. This is the thin edge of the wedge and if it is allowed through then it will threaten all free speech. Imagine not being able to name companies you are protesting against; imagine if you cannot show images of the horrors of war; imagine if your human rights were simply stripped away by right wing councils. All is possible.
Will Liberty do anything - unfortunately not, as they have been happily co-opted by the Vivisection lobby, happy to meet with the front group "Victims of Animal Rights Extremism" as was reported in a government report over the summer, but will not touch grassroots protestors with a barge-pole. Its down to grassroots groups yet again to protect basic rights we all took for granted.
slade
Comments
Hide 27 hidden comments or hide all comments
outrageous, it has to be said
23.10.2009 18:10
Contact Novartis and say you oppose their attack on the right to protest
And tell Lawson-Cruttenden to stop making a mockery of free speech...
Time for everyone to show solidarity.
Pastor Niemöller
Homepage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
Dug up another granny
23.10.2009 18:26
I can't imagine why Liberty don't seem to support you!
Dan Vassella
Don't think this won't happen...
23.10.2009 18:33
Top HLS customer GlaxoSmithKline got an exclusion zone around all their offices in May 2007 which excludes any form of protest, demonstration or outreach against vivisection:
HLS associates have drated dozens of injunctions against SHAC campaigners, more than any other campaign in the country by far:
Restricting and banning protest is why the UK is a police state, not creeping towards one.
@
Why not
23.10.2009 18:41
This is wasting effort. Protest died for animal right activist on the 1st July 2005.
Dummy
Just like EDO
23.10.2009 19:16
"Dan" you are a troll - if your intentions were honest you'd point out that happened in Switzerland. This is about a legal UK demonstration by ordinary, everyday people, not a covert action.
standing strong
Song & Dance
23.10.2009 19:26
suspicious
Honest Intentions???
23.10.2009 19:39
So - no connection at all - why even bother with the lie?
Dan Vassella
Who let the trolls come out to play
23.10.2009 20:32
I hope this works...
"Novartis - isn't this the company where AR activists recently dug up the ashes of the CEO's mother?
"I can't imagine why Liberty don't seem to support you!"
Firstly, where is your evidence of the fact that the Militant Forces Against HLS are an AR group? They most certainly promote animal liberation philosophy, but I don't see anywhere where they promote reformist attempts to change legislation regarding HLS or animals.
Secondly, so because a covert group breaks the law, an overt group can't protest? Where's the logic? Should all muslims also be banned from protesting because of 9/11 for example?
"'The perpetrators also stole an urn containing his mother's ashes and left the message "Drop HLS Now" on her headstone.'
So - no connection at all - why even bother with the lie?"
Why is it you think if two people are against HLS they are the same people? Do you have an insignificant IQ or just incapable of understanding the diveristy of individuals in existence? Maybe it'd be best if you took your daily mail guzzling mind into therapy for some help.
@Dummy
"Stop whining and get on with it? It's obvious to everyone what happens with AR campaigns. On one side you have the legal front and the other the illegal side. So stop pissing in the wind trying to convince everyone that SHAC and the rest are not attacking people in the dead of night.
This is wasting effort. Protest died for animal right activist on the 1st July 2005."
Yes TACTICS have legal and illegal sides, but why can't you comprehend the idea of a legal campaign being, err, legal. Is a legal campaign immediately illegal by your standards if somebody, unassociated to the aboveground campaign, takes illegal action?
Furthermore, if protest died then why aren't you campaigning for civil liberties?
@
a sizeable proportion
23.10.2009 21:20
Good news is that no one who was at that demo was convicted during the trial.
This repression of costumed demos comes of no surprise.
firing line
Homepage:
http://behindenemyline.wordpress.com/
@
23.10.2009 22:15
Furthermore, if protest died then why aren't you campaigning for civil liberties?'
And why can't you comprehend that the legal side of SHAC was just a front? This was one of SHAC strongest TACTIC that kept the likes of special branch running around in circles for years!
Let's look at the facts. Greg, Natasha, Heather, Gavin and Dan are serving large sentences for blackmail, they plead guilty. Not unassociated but SHAC campaign organizers and close associates!
These injunctions were because of this campaign while the above were very much the engine of SHAC.
The TACTIC was that SHAC campaigners could move from legal to illegal without detection, mingle with legal unassociated campaigners.
Running around banging on about injunctions is a waste of time a resources and fighting for the right to demo within a designated box (controlled) is also a waste of time. It was once part of the TACTIC to show the public SHAC was a legal campaign. It's no longer the big secret since the trials.
The biggest strength of campaigns like SHAC was the ability to think on it's feet and shift from one TACTIC to another, always one step ahead. People got lazy.
Protests don't close labs.
Dummy
protestors
23.10.2009 22:48
liberty also held talks with the countryside alliance. there needs to be a body that looks into protests, marchs and demonstrations.
graham
Protesters
23.10.2009 23:00
Come on people get real and move forward.
Pimp my ride
You are what you say you are Dummy
23.10.2009 23:37
"...why can't you comprehend that the legal side of SHAC was just a front? This was one of SHAC strongest TACTIC that kept the likes of special branch running around in circles for years!
Let's look at the facts. Greg, Natasha, Heather, Gavin and Dan are serving large sentences for blackmail, they plead guilty. Not unassociated but SHAC campaign organizers and close associates!"
Correction: the uk SHAC 7 were not convicted of blackmail, this is a complete lie. Furthermore Heather for example did not plead guilty, so this is yet another lie. They were convicted of 'conspiracy to blackmail with persons unknown'. They didn't take any illegal actions, they didn't change their tactic to illegal action, unknown persons did. If you looked at the case for more than 10 seconds you would of known this basic fact: unknown persons acted against HLS targets (ALF et all) and SHAC organisers got the blame because they campaign against HLS aboveground. So the facts stand, those UNassociated with SHAC broke the law, not SHAC activists themselves. Of course if they did they wouldn't of been prosecuted for 'conspiracy' but for blackmail, but there was NO evidence what-so-ever!
"The TACTIC was that SHAC campaigners could move from legal to illegal without detection, mingle with legal unassociated campaigners."
Yeh and I'm Harry Chrisna. You obviously don't know how much surveillance SHAC campaigners were under. If they farted in an exclusion zone cops would of know about it.
"Running around banging on about injunctions is a waste of time a resources and fighting for the right to demo within a designated box (controlled) is also a waste of time. It was once part of the TACTIC to show the public SHAC was a legal campaign. It's no longer the big secret since the trials."
Firstly, very few demos are in designated boxes, this is a complete misrepresentation at best. Secondly, you won't find anyone on here agreeing that fighting for your right to protest is "a waste of time". The state would just love us to think this, so we can all go home instead.
Again, the case showed that conspiracy trials are the new repression tactic. Whether it's conspiracy to blackmail, to commit arson, or to commit criminal damage, it clearly states that individuals prosecuted did neither blackmail, arson or damage, but that they conspired to do so. Even if its with people they don't know, have never met, talked to or agree with.
"The biggest strength of campaigns like SHAC was the ability to think on it's feet and shift from one TACTIC to another, always one step ahead. People got lazy."
The fact remains, the tactics they shifted to were all legal ones. No laziness involved.
"Protests don't close labs."
This sounds like something somone would say to try and gain credibility and to validate previous points, not because they actually mean this or understand it's logic though.
Shame the spray didn't work though, wouldn't of been good.
@
Was it fun?
24.10.2009 11:26
Yes you are correct Heather did plead not guilty but was found guilty and the rest were convicted of a conspiracy with named (each other) and unnamed persons. The facts remain that if you conspire with others to carry out a crime is still an illegal act! SHAC organizers broke the law by conspiring with others to carry out illegal acts as part of the campaign... It matters not who smashed X or paint stripped Y because it was arranged by SHAC, hence the guilty plea in 6 instances and found guilty in one. They got the blame because they organized illegal activity with other unknown. It's not difficult to understand, well not for most.
"Yeh and I'm Harry Chrisna. You obviously don't know how much surveillance SHAC campaigners were under. If they farted in an exclusion zone cops would of know about it."
Yes I am aware hence the laziness. I wonder if you know what SHAC activist had to put up with? High quality covert cameras placed directly facing the house viewed from up the lane piped into the BT buildings at the side. Or even the remote recording system in the same building that was just visible from the back window, designed to record hidden mics placed in the walls. Everyone at SHAC was well aware they were recorded, hence the laziness!
It was a bad day when all were sentenced that much is true but you can't hide or ignore the facts, you need to learn from mistakes.
"Again, the case showed that conspiracy trials are the new repression tactic. Whether it's conspiracy to blackmail, to commit arson, or to commit criminal damage, it clearly states that individuals prosecuted did neither blackmail, arson or damage, but that they conspired to do so. Even if its with people they don't know, have never met, talked to or agree with"
Not the case. You can't be convicted of conspiring with persons unknown alone that's why Sean was acquitted! Conspiring with people to commit an act that was carried out is part of the act itself, in law. Conspiracy is nothing new and is a legal TACTIC to keep either way offenses out of the magistrates court. Any conspiracy charge is an automatic crown court offense. The law has moved TACTICS to sort out an itch and used the conspiracy law, this wouldn't have come into play if people didn't get lazy.
"The fact remains, the tactics they shifted to were all legal ones. No laziness involved."
Ignorance is bliss, they say. Ignorance get's large sentences!
"This sounds like something somone would say to try and gain credibility and to validate previous points, not because they actually mean this or understand it's logic though."
Is that so? My points are valid and I don't look for credibility on internet boards, unlike some... @
Are you fighting to stop animal suffering or civil liberties? Both you say? Well this is my point exactly. I channel my time and effort on animal liberation and haven't got the time to stand on street corners fighting for the right to hold banners and shout puppy killer at people laughing as they drive by. It's a waste of time and effort.
Dummy
Attempted history rewrite!
24.10.2009 12:02
"Mr Justice Butterfield said: 'You cloaked your activities in what was a hypocritical sham pretence that Shac was a vehicle for legitimate lawful protest. It was nothing of the sort.
'I expect that you will be seen by some as martyrs. But you are not going to prison for your beliefs, you are going to prison because each of you has committed a very serious offence.
'Hundreds, probably thousands of decent, men, women and children have had their lives made a living hell by your activities.'
Greg and Natasha Avery, the husband and wife who masterminded the operation, were jailed for nine years each, reduced from 14, after admitting conspiracy to blackmail.
Daniel Amos, 22, the son of a bank manager from Swindon, got four years after also admitting the charge.
The remaining four were convicted.
Heather Nicholson, 41, an ex-nanny from Swansea and another founder member, was jailed for 11 years.
Lie Detector
Greg Avery on protest....
24.10.2009 12:13
Have fun at the weekend!
Greg
This misinformation is getting boring
24.10.2009 12:30
"Not the case. You can't be convicted of conspiring with persons unknown alone that's why Sean was acquitted!"
WRONG. Sean Kirtley was convicted, he then had his conviction OVERTURNED. So you can be convicted for conspiring with persons unkown (to all), as Sean was. This is what happened with the SHAC 7. Three of them (not six as you said) pleaded guilty because they saw what happened to Sean and realised that if he was sentenced to 4.5 years for 'conspiring with persons unkown' (individuals he didn't even know) then so could they. This inevitably then happened. It's not difficult to understand, well not for most. It was a bad day when all were sentenced, you can't hide or ignore the facts here.
So yes you can be convicted for 'conspiracy' even if its with people you don't know, have never met, talked to or agree with. This is what happened to Sean and the SHAC 7. In summary this means legal protesters can be banged up for X amount of years because of something Y (who you don't know) did, and that you were even unaware of. Lovely.
In summary you're full of shit Dummy. You first thought (or claimed) they all pleaded guilty, then said 6 of them pleaded guilty, when infact it was 3 of them. Not forgeting that you thought Sean Kirtley wasn't convicted of SOCPA 145 and sentenced to 4.5 years - what the fuck?! It's difficult to tell whether you're genuinely this ignorant and misinformed or not.
@ Lie Detector
You win the oxymoron for printing a corporate media article and using the name 'Lie Detector'.
@
'Greg'
24.10.2009 12:34
Have fun at the weekend!"
Of course the bosses of companies don't care about the animals inside HLS, but they end up caring about their profits eventually. That's why hundreds of companies dumped HLS!
If you think campainers are trying to bring out the compassion in CEO's you're deluded.
Fool Detector
Warning
24.10.2009 12:38
Dummy Hunter
Wow - SHAC are really loosing it today
24.10.2009 13:09
This point is exposed as a lie by the judges quote - as you find this irrefutable you try and dismiss it as 'corporate' - did you mean 'accurate'?
There is ABSOLUTELY no point in continuing with the lie that SHAC can demonstrate lawfully and the ALF can commit criminal actions with impunity? Who is the lie for? Novartis? They know the truth! The police? Not fooled! The courts - Ask Justice Butterfield! Yourself? Why?
Finally - why do you want to protest under another name? Why do you want to wear masks - shame? Fear?
SHAC - not what they were.
Lie watch
@outrageous, it has to be said
24.10.2009 13:42
NP
Joke of the day by far!
24.10.2009 13:48
Are you seriously trying to convince people on an anti-corporate site that corporations are accurate when they spew out media articles? What a classic!
Tell another - that one was hilarious!
@
I have two more for you...
24.10.2009 15:08
"HLS are bankrupt"
"It will all be over by Xmas"
Trish
More Jokes
24.10.2009 15:20
Now that's what I call a Joke
Or you could call his mobile
24.10.2009 15:32
[removed]
Call early call late! Tell him what you think of his injunctions!
Outrage
To @
24.10.2009 17:00
Who's full of shit then, @..?
Case solved.
Dummy
Joker
24.10.2009 17:28
See
As for HLS being bankrupt, they are nearly so, and it is fucking hilarious to watch! Hence why they are trying to complete an MBO and de-list themselves from the NYSE, even though they are having trouble to even do that because nobody wants to lend them money!
As for the statement "It will all be over by Xmas", apart from you nobody claimed this.
ACAB
Dummy
24.10.2009 17:38
See
You're still full of shit and you know it... case solved indeed!
@
and again a correction for @
24.10.2009 17:43
Grow up.
Dummy
You have a terrible memory then
24.10.2009 18:21
In full: "They conspired to do A B and C ... with Persons or Persons Unknown."
See:
What does ageism have to do with this anyway?
@
more for @
24.10.2009 19:58
Someone who knows
Read
24.10.2009 20:40
Dummy
TLC's MO
25.10.2009 09:39
Get information on protestors from his chums in NETCU who get their info from FIT and photos from the CO11database, hence the masks kids, who wants to be identified?
Scare the living crap out of people/companies with lots of money with scare stories about animal rights people.
Promise the earth to them say that he will get rid of the nasty protestors by going to the High Court. Inn fact he will get them banned from entire counties. In fact anyone who agrees that the protestors might just have a point can be banned too, hell why anyone who reads the injunction, including the judge will have to abide by it. A girl who has signed an anti vivisection petition once will therefore commit an offence if she knows about the injunction and photographs her brother,a Novartis employee. Apparently even I might be considered a protected person under one of his injunctions!
Get journalist cronies like Nicola Woodcock to write some rubbish about protestors.
Get lots of Daily Mail and Times articles, comments and sensationalist crap, put it in lots of ringbinders and present it as "evidence".
Get an "interim" injunction behind closed doors by lying about one bloke and his dog who "terrorise" a workforce several thousand strong by standing at the gate with a banner protesting about the act that his child is dying of cancer from pollution caused by the company.
Send big blokes to bang on the doors of the activists concerned, photograph activists and serve several boxes of legal papers the abundance of which is meant to intimidate. Threaten prison if the injunction is breached, financial ruin if the injunction is challenged.
Have masked up men everywhere near the target company who photograph, film, harass and assault anyone who might be an activist. Give them licence to hit anyone who might be an activist with the injunction in paper form. It will be an imprisonable offence to film this behaviour as the "servers" of the injunction will be protected from "harassment" which includes filming them attacking people.
Go to court, click fingers to get Superintendant Stephen Pearl from NETCU to help. Fuck up injunction, get yelled at by High Court judge (who has just had to read 40 odd ring binders of utter irrelevant shite) for being an idiot.
Get shouted at client, get sacked by client.
Get paid £450 an hour for self, £200 for lesser mortals who work in the office which includes travelling, waiting in court etc REGARDLESS.
Give the evil eye to other lawyers who then get employed to sort out the humungous legal mess cos he TLC thought of this great money making scam first.
Laugh all the way to the bank.
Lynn Sawyer
I love TLC
26.10.2009 12:51
He's cocked up pretty much everything and cost the companies he suckers in lots of money. Long may he continue.
TLC Cuddler
Hide 27 hidden comments or hide all comments