This is what we discussed and decided, as far as I can remember... Sorry its long but some good stuff came out of the day.
Report on the Civil Contingencies Bill Meeting
The aim of the meeting was to create action, to let people know what is going on, to talk about it and to make it real.
1. Local experiences of civil liberties issues/police and council harrassment
Report from the Marks and Spencers picket.
Recent court case – a stall causing an unreasonable obstruction and affixing posters to a railing outside the stall. Manchester City Council, under pressure from Marks and Spencers prosecuted the picket using the Highways Act and the picket were found guilty of interrupting the use of the highway. Now going to appeal. If appeal lost, licenses may be needed to erect stalls. The notices draped on the railings were considered to be fixed notices ‘denying people a place to lean on the railings’. A Defence Campaign for Marks and Spencers Pickets is to be launched on Tuesday, 20th January at Cross St Chapel 7.15pm. This is an opportunity to defend the right to protest, to build the campaign and to broader the issue into a rolling campaign around democratic rights/civil liberties.
Report from the Animal Rights protest
Ongoing, each week outside stores selling fur. Currently, Harvey Nichols in the City Centre. Previously successful in stopping the shop ‘Zara’ selling fur. Experiences with the police/council have been variable. The protesters have been told the paste table is not an obstruction on one occasion but amplified sound is not allowed. On another occasion the council wardens have demanded the removal of the table as against the byelaws. They have also been asked to remove posters as the police have said the pictures of skinned animals are offensive. The police response to protesters is more oppressive than to other people using the streets. For example, a religious man was allowed to shout through a megaphone without being approached. A protesters camera was broken by being pushed backwards by the police when he was filming. On the Marks and Spencers picket, people were told that leaflets etc. must be picked up from the street within a certain radius of the store or be charged with littering as an offence. At the same time, club flyers were being handed out and dropped all over Market Street with no action from the police or council employees.
Discussion/Action
We should investigate the legal situation re filming using video cameras. The BNP constantly use cameras to intimidate people and this is not challenged. Under what circumstances, can the police take the film or stop people filming? How does this link with the constant surveillance of people by CCTV in Manchester? What happens to that film? Apparently, you can request the film from a CCTV camera from the company but have to pay.
From the information and experiences of people at the meeting, it seems protestors are facing a new intensity of police harassment and bullying by city council street wardens. Private security guards are also harassing protesters from Salford Peace Group on Salford precinct. What are the byelaws and where can we get them from? We decided to speak to someone with legal knowledge and produce a leaflet for people doing stalls/protests on the city streets, with accurate information about their rights. We decided to write a letter and post it on the Impact website and on Indymedia asking for help with info re legal issues and to get together a list of questions for legal advice from a solicitor. Also discussed using mobiles as a bluff (when faced with police harassment, be seen to be phoning your solicitor). It is also a good idea when using film to have someone in the role of ‘runner’ to take the film and disappear, if necessary, and to have people whose role is to listen and observe what is happening. We also want to find out who owns various spaces in Manchester eg: the large area outside GMEX.
We will have a workshop for people to learn practical skills about using cameras on protests and about using independent media. We need to have clear plans for the use of cameras worked out in advance of a protest to get film which is useful to us.
2. ID Cards/The Civil Contingencies Bill
The Civil Contingencies Bill and the proposed introduction of ID cards shift political ‘normality’ further towards the right wing. We talked about the use of ID cards in Europe (particularly in Italy). In Italy ID cards include fairly limited information and the person carrying the card has some choice over the information (you don’t have to have type of employment, for example, but can choose it if you want). These cards are not ‘chipped’ as the British cards will be. Also in Europe, you can travel between countries without a passport. In post ID card Britain, you would still need a passport as well as an ID card. ID cards in Britain are for internal security reasons. There have been successful struggles against the introduction of ID cards. We talked about South Africa and Australia. In Australia, in the face of mass public protests and civil disobedience, the government eventually scrapped the idea. Young people in Britain are being softened up to idea of ID cards through the introduction of the ‘Connexions’ card (a ‘smart’ card, managed by Capita – who run the criminal records bureau- that carries personal data and is being offered to two million teenagers and promoted on the back of Ready Brek.
This is all part of a bigger picture. A society where people can be tracked constantly via universal surveillance. In Swindon, the Mondex card was introduced to replace the use of cash in shops. Masses of information about you can already be obtained via your use of your mobile, the internet, loyalty cards in shops, CCTV, credit cards.. etc. The ID card completes the picture. Manchester has its own ‘spy plane’. Information from the spybase at Menwith Hill is released back to Fort Meade in Maryland, USA. People talked about the use of this information, for commercial purposes and its capacity to be used in political repression. There is also a move towards setting up a National Population Register which differs from the census in that people are identified by name. This and ID cards are separate proposals but there is a synergy between them.
ID cards may use biometric technology such as iris scans. This technology is not reliable. Also, ID cards can be wiped and reprogrammed. The point was made that introducing ID cards successfully, will be a massive bureaucratic exercise. It will probably be administered by Capita or some-such, so the chances are it will be an absolute shambles. We also talked about the digitisation of data and the possibility of body-implants in the future, the creation of an underclass of vulnerable people without ID cards and so denied access to public services, mortgages etc. and the way information can be passed across services to find people (eg. In the days of the campaign against poll tax, people who hadn’t paid could not use public libraries without being pursued for the debt).
What can we do about it?
If people refuse to participate in the National Population Register or to carry ID cards, it defeats the purpose of the project. We also discussed setting up support networks for cardless people and to join the protests at Menwith Hill spy base on March 19th. Sabotage is good too. People can join the Defy-ID campaign. Contact
admin@defy-id.org.uk. More info on www.defy-id.org.uk. We also decided to incorporate ID cards into street action against the Civil Contingencies Bill.
The Civil Contingencies Bill
We started by talking about the powers the government have already: they can ban travel, ration food and cut off access to communication (like telephones). Then Heather talked about the Bill itself. The intention of the CCB is to extend existing powers further to protect the government, the state and financial institutions and to make those powers immune to legal challenges (under the Human Rights Act, for example). Draft 2 of the CCB defines emergency as “threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or security of the UK or part of it”. This includes damage to property, crops, threats to financial institutions and damage to communications networks.
The power the state will have include public curfew, a ban on public meetings and the ability to seize property without compensation. The public can be banned from access to sensitive sites (Menwith Hill, for example). The state can also take control of major financial instituations to protect the market (nice to know where their priorities lie…). Any act of parliament can be amended to deal with an emergency and powers will last for 21 days unless approved by parliament in that time period, in which case, they can last indefinitely. Statewatch says: “cities could be sealed off, travel bans introduced, all phones cut off, websites shut down, demonstrations banned, curfews imposed, news media censored and new offences against the state created daily by government decree”.
We talked about what it means to protesters:
Denial of access to sensitive sites, loss of the right to demonstrate (the bill includes extensive powers to prevent assemblies, travel and other “unspecified” activities), damage to property, loss of internet and email. We were also concerned that the wording means it seems to be aimed particularly at eco-activists as an area of protest, for example anti-GM actions again crops. We discussed if people thought the government would use it and most people thought maybe not but that’s not the point because once it is law it would be ready and waiting. The Protection against Harrassment Act was first used against animal rights protestors. Also, the bigger picture is that this bill will increase fear and tension and racist backlash attacks on vulnerable people. It makes it easier to push the neo-liberal agenda forward and persuade people to accept it for ‘their own safety’.
Actions
We are taking the Ministry of Truth onto the streets 20 years after 1984. The first outing will be 28th February. Anyone who wants to be involved in getting it together, anyone with ideas for street theatre actions, please get in touch.
The aim of the meeting was to create action, to let people know what is going on, to talk about it and to make it real.
1. Local experiences of civil liberties issues/police and council harrassment
Report from the Marks and Spencers picket.
Recent court case – a stall causing an unreasonable obstruction and affixing posters to a railing outside the stall. Manchester City Council, under pressure from Marks and Spencers prosecuted the picket using the Highways Act and the picket were found guilty of interrupting the use of the highway. Now going to appeal. If appeal lost, licenses may be needed to erect stalls. The notices draped on the railings were considered to be fixed notices ‘denying people a place to lean on the railings’. A Defence Campaign for Marks and Spencers Pickets is to be launched on Tuesday, 20th January at Cross St Chapel 7.15pm. This is an opportunity to defend the right to protest, to build the campaign and to broader the issue into a rolling campaign around democratic rights/civil liberties.
Report from the Animal Rights protest
Ongoing, each week outside stores selling fur. Currently, Harvey Nichols in the City Centre. Previously successful in stopping the shop ‘Zara’ selling fur. Experiences with the police/council have been variable. The protesters have been told the paste table is not an obstruction on one occasion but amplified sound is not allowed. On another occasion the council wardens have demanded the removal of the table as against the byelaws. They have also been asked to remove posters as the police have said the pictures of skinned animals are offensive. The police response to protesters is more oppressive than to other people using the streets. For example, a religious man was allowed to shout through a megaphone without being approached. A protesters camera was broken by being pushed backwards by the police when he was filming. On the Marks and Spencers picket, people were told that leaflets etc. must be picked up from the street within a certain radius of the store or be charged with littering as an offence. At the same time, club flyers were being handed out and dropped all over Market Street with no action from the police or council employees.
Discussion/Action
We should investigate the legal situation re filming using video cameras. The BNP constantly use cameras to intimidate people and this is not challenged. Under what circumstances, can the police take the film or stop people filming? How does this link with the constant surveillance of people by CCTV in Manchester? What happens to that film? Apparently, you can request the film from a CCTV camera from the company but have to pay.
From the information and experiences of people at the meeting, it seems protestors are facing a new intensity of police harassment and bullying by city council street wardens. Private security guards are also harassing protesters from Salford Peace Group on Salford precinct. What are the byelaws and where can we get them from? We decided to speak to someone with legal knowledge and produce a leaflet for people doing stalls/protests on the city streets, with accurate information about their rights. We decided to write a letter and post it on the Impact website and on Indymedia asking for help with info re legal issues and to get together a list of questions for legal advice from a solicitor. Also discussed using mobiles as a bluff (when faced with police harassment, be seen to be phoning your solicitor). It is also a good idea when using film to have someone in the role of ‘runner’ to take the film and disappear, if necessary, and to have people whose role is to listen and observe what is happening. We also want to find out who owns various spaces in Manchester eg: the large area outside GMEX.
We will have a workshop for people to learn practical skills about using cameras on protests and about using independent media. We need to have clear plans for the use of cameras worked out in advance of a protest to get film which is useful to us.
2. ID Cards/The Civil Contingencies Bill
The Civil Contingencies Bill and the proposed introduction of ID cards shift political ‘normality’ further towards the right wing. We talked about the use of ID cards in Europe (particularly in Italy). In Italy ID cards include fairly limited information and the person carrying the card has some choice over the information (you don’t have to have type of employment, for example, but can choose it if you want). These cards are not ‘chipped’ as the British cards will be. Also in Europe, you can travel between countries without a passport. In post ID card Britain, you would still need a passport as well as an ID card. ID cards in Britain are for internal security reasons. There have been successful struggles against the introduction of ID cards. We talked about South Africa and Australia. In Australia, in the face of mass public protests and civil disobedience, the government eventually scrapped the idea. Young people in Britain are being softened up to idea of ID cards through the introduction of the ‘Connexions’ card (a ‘smart’ card, managed by Capita – who run the criminal records bureau- that carries personal data and is being offered to two million teenagers and promoted on the back of Ready Brek.
This is all part of a bigger picture. A society where people can be tracked constantly via universal surveillance. In Swindon, the Mondex card was introduced to replace the use of cash in shops. Masses of information about you can already be obtained via your use of your mobile, the internet, loyalty cards in shops, CCTV, credit cards.. etc. The ID card completes the picture. Manchester has its own ‘spy plane’. Information from the spybase at Menwith Hill is released back to Fort Meade in Maryland, USA. People talked about the use of this information, for commercial purposes and its capacity to be used in political repression. There is also a move towards setting up a National Population Register which differs from the census in that people are identified by name. This and ID cards are separate proposals but there is a synergy between them.
ID cards may use biometric technology such as iris scans. This technology is not reliable. Also, ID cards can be wiped and reprogrammed. The point was made that introducing ID cards successfully, will be a massive bureaucratic exercise. It will probably be administered by Capita or some-such, so the chances are it will be an absolute shambles. We also talked about the digitisation of data and the possibility of body-implants in the future, the creation of an underclass of vulnerable people without ID cards and so denied access to public services, mortgages etc. and the way information can be passed across services to find people (eg. In the days of the campaign against poll tax, people who hadn’t paid could not use public libraries without being pursued for the debt).
What can we do about it?
If people refuse to participate in the National Population Register or to carry ID cards, it defeats the purpose of the project. We also discussed setting up support networks for cardless people and to join the protests at Menwith Hill spy base on March 19th. Sabotage is good too. People can join the Defy-ID campaign. Contact
admin@defy-id.org.uk. More info on www.defy-id.org.uk. We also decided to incorporate ID cards into street action against the Civil Contingencies Bill. The Civil Contingencies Bill
We started by talking about the powers the government have already: they can ban travel, ration food and cut off access to communication (like telephones). Then Heather talked about the Bill itself. The intention of the CCB is to extend existing powers further to protect the government, the state and financial institutions and to make those powers immune to legal challenges (under the Human Rights Act, for example). Draft 2 of the CCB defines emergency as “threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or security of the UK or part of it”. This includes damage to property, crops, threats to financial institutions and damage to communications networks.
The power the state will have include public curfew, a ban on public meetings and the ability to seize property without compensation. The public can be banned from access to sensitive sites (Menwith Hill, for example). The state can also take control of major financial instituations to protect the market (nice to know where their priorities lie…). Any act of parliament can be amended to deal with an emergency and powers will last for 21 days unless approved by parliament in that time period, in which case, they can last indefinitely. Statewatch says: “cities could be sealed off, travel bans introduced, all phones cut off, websites shut down, demonstrations banned, curfews imposed, news media censored and new offences against the state created daily by government decree”.
We talked about what it means to protesters:
Denial of access to sensitive sites, loss of the right to demonstrate (the bill includes extensive powers to prevent assemblies, travel and other “unspecified” activities), damage to property, loss of internet and email. We were also concerned that the wording means it seems to be aimed particularly at eco-activists as an area of protest, for example anti-GM actions again crops. We discussed if people thought the government would use it and most people thought maybe not but that’s not the point because once it is law it would be ready and waiting. The Protection against Harrassment Act was first used against animal rights protestors. Also, the bigger picture is that this bill will increase fear and tension and racist backlash attacks on vulnerable people. It makes it easier to push the neo-liberal agenda forward and persuade people to accept it for ‘their own safety’.
Actions
We are taking the Ministry of Truth onto the streets 20 years after 1984. The first outing will be 28th February. Anyone who wants to be involved in getting it together, anyone with ideas for street theatre actions, please get in touch.
e-mail:
Homepage: