HIGH COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER BRITISH COMPANY CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WAR CRIMES IN IRAQ AND PALESTINE.
SMASH EDO
PRESS RELEASE
http://www.smashedo.org.uk
Tuesday 24TH October 2005.
EMBARGO. For Immediate Release
CONTACT: Andrew Beckett or Sarah Johnson on
07875 708873
smashedopress@yahoo.co.uk
HIGH COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER BRITISH COMPANY CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WAR CRIMES IN IRAQ AND PALESTINE.
In a three day High Court hearing (1st-3rd November)
as part of the ongoing injunction trial against
Brighton peace activists, the UK government will once
more face accusations that the Iraq war was illegal.
The Court will also decide whether weapons
manufacturers in the UK can be held responsible for
war crimes committed with the use of their
merchandise. The Attorney General’s office has
controversially intervened in proceedings to argue
that UK foreign policy is not subject to the rule of
law because of the special nature of the Royal
Prerogative.
In a previous hearing Judge Simons ordered that the
court decide
“Are matters of UK foreign policy and deployment of
the UK’s armed forces in the exercise of the Royal
Prerogative matters which are justicible".
The defendants are fighting an injunction from
Brighton arms manufacturer EDO MBM under the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 The injunction
seeks to restrict their right to free speech and
assembly. Injunctions under this act however do not
apply if the purpose of the defendants is to “prevent
or detect crime”
Evidence submitted to the court shows that EDO MBM
manufacture bomb release mechanisms and guidance
systems in use with UK, US and Israeli forces. Those
weapons were used (and are being used) in the illegal
invasion and occupation of Iraq and the Occupation of
Palestine.
The Court will be shown graphic evidence of the
aftermath of air-strikes, in the shape of photographs
and eyewitness statements of survivors.
THERE WILL BE A DEMONSTRATION OUTSIDE THE ROYAL COURTS
OF JUSTICE ON TUESDAY 1st NOVEMBER AT 9.30 AM
==========================================
Notes for Journalists
Brighton&Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City.
The injunction referred to was served under the 1997
Protection from Harassment Act (originally designed to
protect women from stalkers) and is the first of its
kind directed at activists outside of the animal
rights movement. Crucially it is a civil injunction
but carries criminal penalties. It affects anyone
deemed to be a protestor.
Initially EDO/MBM requested a large “exclusion zone”
comprising the whole of Home Farm Industrial Estate.
They and Sussex police also wanted to limit
demonstrations to two and a half hours, with less than
ten people who had to be silent. Judge Gross refused
to impose these conditions at the initial hearing of
an interim injunction, which was put in place in the
period before the full trial to be heard at the High
court in London from November 21st.
In his summing up he said, “The right to freedom of
expression is jealously guarded in English law” and
consequently refused to impose the requested limits on
size, timing or noise made at demonstrations.
He also said that he doubted that protesters were
'stalking' employees of EDO MBM.
EDO MBM Technologies Ltd are the sole 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. They supply bomb release
mechanisms to the US and UK armed forces amongst
others. They supply crucial components for Raytheon’s
Paveway IV guided bomb system, widely used in the
“Shock and Awe” campaign in Iraq.
EDO also withdrew a threatened libel action against
Indymedia
over being named as “warmongers”.
Lawson-Cruttenden & Co
Solicitors firm working for EDO have been instrumental
in developing 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 and anti-GM
protestors.
Campaign against EDO MBM.
People involved in the anti-EDO campaign include, but
are not limited to: local residents, the Brighton
Quakers, peace activists, anti-capitalists, Palestine
Solidarity groups, human rights groups, trade
unionists, academics and students.
The campaign started in August 2004 with a peace camp.
It’s avowed aim is to expose EDO MBM and their
complicity in war crimes and to remove them from
Brighton.
PRESS RELEASE
http://www.smashedo.org.uk Tuesday 24TH October 2005.
EMBARGO. For Immediate Release
CONTACT: Andrew Beckett or Sarah Johnson on
07875 708873
smashedopress@yahoo.co.uk HIGH COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER BRITISH COMPANY CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WAR CRIMES IN IRAQ AND PALESTINE.
In a three day High Court hearing (1st-3rd November)
as part of the ongoing injunction trial against
Brighton peace activists, the UK government will once
more face accusations that the Iraq war was illegal.
The Court will also decide whether weapons
manufacturers in the UK can be held responsible for
war crimes committed with the use of their
merchandise. The Attorney General’s office has
controversially intervened in proceedings to argue
that UK foreign policy is not subject to the rule of
law because of the special nature of the Royal
Prerogative.
In a previous hearing Judge Simons ordered that the
court decide
“Are matters of UK foreign policy and deployment of
the UK’s armed forces in the exercise of the Royal
Prerogative matters which are justicible".
The defendants are fighting an injunction from
Brighton arms manufacturer EDO MBM under the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 The injunction
seeks to restrict their right to free speech and
assembly. Injunctions under this act however do not
apply if the purpose of the defendants is to “prevent
or detect crime”
Evidence submitted to the court shows that EDO MBM
manufacture bomb release mechanisms and guidance
systems in use with UK, US and Israeli forces. Those
weapons were used (and are being used) in the illegal
invasion and occupation of Iraq and the Occupation of
Palestine.
The Court will be shown graphic evidence of the
aftermath of air-strikes, in the shape of photographs
and eyewitness statements of survivors.
THERE WILL BE A DEMONSTRATION OUTSIDE THE ROYAL COURTS
OF JUSTICE ON TUESDAY 1st NOVEMBER AT 9.30 AM
==========================================
Notes for Journalists
Brighton&Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City.
The injunction referred to was served under the 1997
Protection from Harassment Act (originally designed to
protect women from stalkers) and is the first of its
kind directed at activists outside of the animal
rights movement. Crucially it is a civil injunction
but carries criminal penalties. It affects anyone
deemed to be a protestor.
Initially EDO/MBM requested a large “exclusion zone”
comprising the whole of Home Farm Industrial Estate.
They and Sussex police also wanted to limit
demonstrations to two and a half hours, with less than
ten people who had to be silent. Judge Gross refused
to impose these conditions at the initial hearing of
an interim injunction, which was put in place in the
period before the full trial to be heard at the High
court in London from November 21st.
In his summing up he said, “The right to freedom of
expression is jealously guarded in English law” and
consequently refused to impose the requested limits on
size, timing or noise made at demonstrations.
He also said that he doubted that protesters were
'stalking' employees of EDO MBM.
EDO MBM Technologies Ltd are the sole 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. They supply bomb release
mechanisms to the US and UK armed forces amongst
others. They supply crucial components for Raytheon’s
Paveway IV guided bomb system, widely used in the
“Shock and Awe” campaign in Iraq.
EDO also withdrew a threatened libel action against
Indymedia
over being named as “warmongers”.
Lawson-Cruttenden & Co
Solicitors firm working for EDO have been instrumental
in developing 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 and anti-GM
protestors.
Campaign against EDO MBM.
People involved in the anti-EDO campaign include, but
are not limited to: local residents, the Brighton
Quakers, peace activists, anti-capitalists, Palestine
Solidarity groups, human rights groups, trade
unionists, academics and students.
The campaign started in August 2004 with a peace camp.
It’s avowed aim is to expose EDO MBM and their
complicity in war crimes and to remove them from
Brighton.
e-mail:
Homepage:
