"Then they came for the animal activists..." Do we speak out enough?

[chymaera]

So, basically, you're going by a piece of flawed legislation that pretty much lumps all forms of direct action in with the likes of Al Q'aida, and you're prepared to swallow it whole?

Basically, under that particular definition anyway, anyone engaging in anything beyond yet another pointless A to B march, irrespective of whether that action contains even the slightest use, threat of use, or even the avowed non-use of violence, is now a terrorist?

Do you really, genuinely believe that?

I can't agree that:- "Basically, under that particular definition anyway, anyone engaging in anything beyond yet another pointless A to B march, irrespective of whether that action contains even the slightest use, threat of use, or even the avowed non-use of violence, is now a terrorist?"
is even implied by the act.

I have had several friends suffer vandalism to their homes, and cars, and being terrorised in their homes by so called animal rights "activists".
So I am more than a tad biased against them.

 

[Bakunin]

But by the info given on this thread, those who damage to a nuke base are terrorists in UK law.

Which proves the point that the Terrorism Act is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation aimed at least as much at clamping down on domestic protest as it is supposedly aimed at terrorists.

Does anyone here seriously believe that the likes of Trident Ploughshares are on the same level as Al Q'aida?

 

[Bakunin]

I can't agree that:- "Basically, under that particular definition anyway, anyone engaging in anything beyond yet another pointless A to B march, irrespective of whether that action contains even the slightest use, threat of use, or even the avowed non-use of violence, is now a terrorist?"
is even implied by the act.

I have had several friends suffer vandalism to their homes, and cars, and being terrorised in their homes by so called animal rights "activists".
So I am more than a tad biased against them.

Of course it is implied by the act. It isn't even implied as the activities of direct action groups are clearly covered by the act which makes no distinction as to whether or not their actions even need be violent.

 

[chymaera]

Of course it is implied by the act. It isn't even implied as the activities of direct action groups are clearly covered by the act which makes no distinction as to whether or not their actions even need be violent.

"(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. "

Seems clear enough to me, and I have no argument with it.

 

[Bakunin]

"(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. "

Seems clear enough to me, and I have no argument with it.

Let's get this straight.

Are you really saying that people who engage in, for the sake of argument, non violent direct action involving property destruction, are terrorists?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Which proves the point that the Terrorism Act is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation aimed at least as much at clamping down on domestic protest as it is supposedly aimed at terrorists.

Does anyone here seriously believe that the likes of Trident Ploughshares are on the same level as Al Q'aida?

They are trying to spread the definition, both in legal and propaganda terms. Animal rights action would seem to be between the 2 and getting caught up.

 

[chymaera]

Let's get this straight.

Are you really saying that people who engage in, for the sake of argument, non violent direct action involving property destruction, are terrorists?

Property destruction IS violent action.

 

[shagnasty]

One truth is that what happens to these groups today will be used against others.I bet the anti-abortion people in american are not targetted as much as other groups .One thing i must say if the allegations against the AR groups are substantiated then yes they are wrong in their actions

 

[Bakunin]

Property destruction IS violent action.

NO. IT. ISN'T.

It can be done perfectly safely and with no injury to anyone operating machinery or equipment. There are innumerable ways to disable, sabotage or destroy various things without posing any risk at all to human life or limb. It's just a question of how you choose to go about monkeywrenching, NOT whether or not sabotaging or destroying an inanimate object is violent.

It depends on the methods employed, NOT the tactic itself.

And now, and I'd like a very simple answer to this, just the single word 'Yes' or 'No' is all I need:

Do you consider the likes of Trident Ploughshares to be terrorists?

Yes or No?

 

[chymaera]

NO. IT. ISN'T.

Sorry but property destruction IS violent action, and has been accepted as such for a very long time.
Protestors can't change definitions just to suit their own ends.

 

[Bakunin]

Sorry but property destruction IS violent action, and has been accepted as such for a very long time.
Protestors can't change definitions just to suit their own ends.

Accepted by whom, exactly? Examples, please.

And you didn't answer my question.

 

[chymaera]

Do you consider the likes of Trident Ploughshares to be terrorists?

Yes or No?

When they start breaking into where there are nuclear installations yes I do.
They have been very lucky some of them have not been shot dead. When you get past the MOD plod guarding something military and nuclear you are then in the domain of armed military personel with standing orders to shoot.
They can't tell who is and who is not a terrorist, they HAVE to prevent any possibility of a nuclear incident.

 

[free spirit]

Accepted by whom, exactly? Examples, please.

And you didn't answer my question.

actually on this occasion I think Chymera might be technically correct

Violence definitions (answers.com)

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

I do think this is a case of the technical definition falling behind the common usage of a word, but technically Chymera's correct.

 

[Bakunin]

When they start breaking into where there are nuclear installations yes I do.
They have been very lucky some of them have not been shot dead. When you get past the MOD plod guarding something military and nuclear you are then in the domain of armed military personel with standing orders to shoot.
They can't tell who is and who is not a terrorist, they HAVE to prevent any possibility of a nuclear incident.

So you consider a collection of Quakers, Buddhists, hippies, concerned citizens and peaceniks, all of whom have an avowed policy of absolute pacifism and nonviolence, to be on the same level as the likes of Black September or the Red Army Faction?

You must be joking, surely.

I hardly think a collection of pacifists with boltcutters and spray paint can be lumped in with Osama Bin Ladin or the Baader-Meinhof crew.

 

[chymaera]

So you consider a collection of Quakers, Buddhists, hippies, concerned citizens and peaceniks, all of whom have an avowed policy of absolute pacifism and nonviolence, to be on the same level as the likes of Black September or the Red Army Faction?

You must be joking, surely.

I hardly think a collection of pacifists with boltcutters and spray paint can be lumped in with Osama Bin Ladin or the Baader-Meinhof crew.

I am not joking at all, from the perspective of the person charged with stopping anyone getting past a certain point in order there is no chance of a nasty occurence which could endanger the lives of many thousands of people.
They will shoot to stop anyone not authorised to be there.
What the actual intention of the person they have just shot dead was is totally irrelevant. (It isn't just nuclear military installations either there is at least one level 4 bio hazard lab where standing orders are to shoot intruders if they get past a certain point as well)

 

[Bakunin]

I am not joking at all, from the perspective of the person charged with stopping anyone getting past a certain point in order there is no chance of a nasty occurence which could endanger the lives of many thousands of people.
They will shoot to stop anyone not authorised to be there.
What the actual intention of the person they have just shot dead was is totally irrelevant. (It isn't just nuclear military installations either there is at least one level 4 bio hazard lab where standing orders are to shoot intruders if they get past a certain point as well)

Your equation of the Ploughshares folk with the likes of Al Q'aida is simply ridiculous, I'm afraid, and does you no favours.

One is a group of absolute pacifists who do what they do with the intention of preventing mass murder and saving lives, the other a group of hardline religious zealots with a penchant for acts of mass murder and taking as many lives as possible.

To bring the debate back on track, I do not consider property destruction to be violent as long as it is done in such a way as to make sure no person is harmed. As I stated earlier, there are a multitude of ways to sabotage a multitude of things in a safe way that harms nobody.

The original argument of the thread was that, while AR folk are the primary targets of repressive legislation, AT THE MOMENT, other groups could well find themselves under attack later on. I'd say that that argument stands.

 

[chymaera]

Your equation of the Ploughshares folk with the likes of Al Q'aida is simply ridiculous, I'm afraid, and does you no favours.

.

You totally miss the point, if you break into what is a terrorist target you will be treated as a terrorist by those defending it.
They have no way of knowing your intention.

 

[Bakunin]

You totally miss the point, if you break into what is a terrorist target you will be treated as a terrorist by those defending it.
They have no way of knowing your intention.

Well, it's rather strange that there's never been a shot fired, isn't it?

You may wish to lump the likes of Ploughshares and Al Q'aida together, but it seems that those who guard nuclear facilities don't.

Odd that.

 

[chymaera]

Well, it's rather strange that there's never been a shot fired, isn't it?

More down to the intense training of those doing the defending.
(That the M.O.D plod have no let rip is nothing short of miraculous, but they are not allowed to defend inner perimeters they don't have a high enough security clearance.)
I have seen an M.O.D policeman remove a protestor from a crane by sticking a sub-machine gun in his ear and give him two choices, but there were no witnesses, and given I was not supposed to be where I was either, there still aren't.

 

[agricola]

Bakunin,

If we are returning to the OP then we must see that the "use of terrorist legislation" line that has been peddled is moot - they (the four mentioned at the start of the Schnews article) havent been charged with terrorist offences, just conspiracy to blackmail and arson, nor have they been interned.

 

[chymaera]

they (the four mentioned at the start of the Schnews article) havent been charged with terrorist offences, just conspiracy to blackmail and arson, nor have they been interned.

Well never let the truth cloud a good story.
"As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid."Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 6 (1925).

 

[Bakunin]

Bakunin,

If we are returning to the OP then we must see that the "use of terrorist legislation" line that has been peddled is moot - they (the four mentioned at the start of the Schnews article) havent been charged with terrorist offences, just conspiracy to blackmail and arson, nor have they been interned.

Agreed.

But the Terrorism Act that is now under discussion could easily be used to cover AR folk and activists of all stripes. Given that the definitions employed are so broad, and deliberately so IMHO, practically anyone going beyond yet another pointless A to B march is (or could be) covered by the act.

 

[chymaera]

Agreed.

But the Terrorism Act that is now under discussion could easily be used to cover AR folk and activists of all stripes. Given that the definitions employed are so broad, and deliberately so IMHO, practically anyone going beyond yet another pointless A to B march is (or could be) covered by the act.

Nothing in the legislation prevents peaceful protest or assembly.

 

[Bakunin]

Nothing in the legislation prevents peaceful protest or assembly.

I suggest you look at the SOCPA legislation, especially the parts that state we should ask permission (in certain areas, especially around Parliament) simply to exercise our right to engage in yet another pointless little march that doesn't usually achieve anything.

And I still say that property destruction is not violent, provided nobody is harmed.

 

[chymaera]

I suggest you look at the SOCPA legislation, especially the parts that state we should ask permission (in certain areas, especially around Parliament) simply to exercise our right to engage in yet another pointless little march that doesn't usually achieve anything.

And I still say that property destruction is not violent, provided nobody is harmed.

I fail to see why asking for permission for a protest is so difficult a concept.
It is only common courtesy so that arrangements can be made to redirect traffic ectcetera.
If you can't see how property destruction is violent that is why you have problems protesting.

 

[Bakunin]

I fail to see why asking for permission for a protest is so difficult a concept.
It is only common courtesy so that arrangements can be made to redirect traffic ectcetera.
If you can't see how property destruction is violent that is why you have problems protesting.

I'm damned if I'll ask permission for something that's already mine by right, if you don't mind. Liaison for safety purposes I can see a need for, especially with larger marches, but permission is not required, nor should it be asked for.

And I don't have any problems protesting either, by whatever non-violent means, including property destruction, are necessary for the task at hand.

 

[chymaera]

I'm damned if I'll ask permission for something that's already mine by right, if you don't mind. Liaison for safety purposes I can see a need for, especially with larger marches, but permission is not required, nor should it be asked for.

And I don't have any problems protesting either, by whatever non-violent means, including property destruction, are necessary for the task at hand.

Property destruction is criminal damage as well as being violent and you should be jailed for it.

 

[agricola]

Agreed.

But the Terrorism Act that is now under discussion could easily be used to cover AR folk and activists of all stripes. Given that the definitions employed are so broad, and deliberately so IMHO, practically anyone going beyond yet another pointless A to B march is (or could be) covered by the act.

I agree that SOCPA does target AR types - it was brought in partly because of SHAC's "campaign", after all - but I would wait until it is actually used as such, instead of reacting when some very dodgy people claim they are being treated as terrorists when, in fact, they are being treated as the criminals they are. As for Parliament Square banning, I hope that gets removed because it is shameful.

Also, it is worth bearing in mind that the success of certain AR types may be more due to the fact that they have access to large amounts of cash, rather than their methods alone.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Property destruction is criminal damage as well as being violent and you should be jailed for it.

Is it terrorist to sabatoge the NIR?

 

[Bakunin]

Property destruction is criminal damage as well as being violent and you should be jailed for it.

Ahem, the two examples of non violent direct action that I quoted were Trident Ploughshares and the anti whaling laws. Nukes are illegal under 11 statutes of international law and commercial whaling was outlawed as well.

So groups such as TP and Sea Shepherd, far from breaking any laws, are in fact enforcing them.