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

[agricola]

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.

erm... nuclear weapons are not illegal. Their use, or the threat of their use, may be.

 

[Bakunin]

erm... nuclear weapons are not illegal. Their use, or the threat of their use, may be.

I refer you to www.tridentploughshares.org.

A quick search will give you 11 statutes under various international laws and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of July 1994.

The Sea Shepherd folk are also enforcing the ban on commercial whaling from the International Whaling Commission.

Both groups operate non-violently.

 

[agricola]

I refer you to www.tridentploughshares.org.

A quick search will give you 11 statutes under various international laws and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of July 1994.

The Sea Shepherd folk are also enforcing the ban on commercial whaling from the International Whaling Commission.

Both groups operate non-violently.

The Advisory Opinion of the ICJ (of July 1996, not 1994) did not say nuclear weapons were illegal. They said their use, or threat of their use (something beyond deterrence) may be. There is a good Wikipedia article, with plenty of links, here. The same page and the detailed look at how the ICJ came to its decision also rubbishes the "11 statutes" claim. As for whaling, I agree with you there - its a terrible shame that the world can allow the utter fib that the Japanese need 1,000 whales for scientific research in a year.

 

[chymaera]

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.

What worries me is you really believe that.

 

[likesfish]

if they can nick you for arson and attempted blackmail your a crim hardly interment.
well thinking ar types deserve all they get
would rather terrorist legislation be used against some of the teenage gangs of yooth posing on the net with guns and knives.
there a group intent on armed mayhem e.g. there terrorists 28 days in an orange jumpsuit would suit them

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

chymaera

Do you believe sabotage to the NIR database is terrorist? The government does.

Sorry to repeat the question, but I am interested.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Anyway, do you support these state methods or do you not see that it can easily be the thin end of a thick wedge? That was mostly the point of the thread.

I'#m confused how is this the thin end of the wedge?

if you are saying that lockign up potential criminals for months at a time before trail or sentencing is the thin end of the wedge then yes i'd agree howeve we've been doing this since the industrail revolution and frankly the legal system is some what better than it was then... it's a little after the horse has bolted to complain now....

as for shoudl animal rights activists who vaule animal life above human life then sorry old chum but fuck em...

this isn't the any end of any wedge period...

 

[Bakunin]

I'#m confused how is this the thin end of the wedge?

this isn't the any end of any wedge period...

I think you'll find it is.

The legislation is already there, and probably with more on the way. It's likely to be used first against the AR activists as they are a soft target, but it will more than likely be rolled out against activists of all shades before long.

 

[Fullyplumped]

It's likely to be used first against the AR activists as they are a soft target...

I'm sure that if the "AR activists" were to refrain from intimidation and violence and extortion and digging up people's dead grannies they would stop being a soft target.

 

[Fullyplumped]

chymaera

Do you believe sabotage to the NIR database is terrorist? The government does.

Sorry to repeat the question, but I am interested.

I don't know what Chymaera thinks about it, but as far as I am concerned an attempt or conspiracy to sabotage a central element of the anti terrorist and national security infrastructure should be treated as a terrorist attempt or conspiracy. That isn't quite the question that was asked but I'm sure it is the answer that was being sought.

 

[Bakunin]

I'm sure that if the "AR activists" were to refrain from intimidation and violence and extortion and digging up people's dead grannies they would stop being a soft target.

In which case the State would no doubt find some other group of activists to use as justification. If it weren't the AR activists then it would be another cause or grouping.

 

[likesfish]

I don't know what Chymaera thinks about it, but as far as I am concerned an attempt or conspiracy to sabotage a central element of the anti terrorist and national security infrastructure should be treated as a terrorist attempt or conspiracy. That isn't quite the question that was asked but I'm sure it is the answer that was being sought.

so can we do the ceo of whatever it firm fucks up the contracts for sabotage

 

[Fullyplumped]

In which case the State would no doubt find some other group of activists to use as justification. If it weren't the AR activists then it would be another cause or grouping.

Well here's an idea - let all activists refrain from intimidation and violence and extortion and digging up people's dead grannies. That will show the state good an' proper an' no mistake. They won't know what's hit them.

 

[agricola]

In which case the State would no doubt find some other group of activists to use as justification. If it weren't the AR activists then it would be another cause or grouping.

... except that they havent. Certain AR campaigns have stepped well beyond the bounds of acceptable protest and have resulted in these laws coming about, not because the state has been picking on AR types - far from it, since the law pre-SOCPA was being abused by certain AR types.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I think you'll find it is.

The legislation is already there, and probably with more on the way. It's likely to be used first against the AR activists as they are a soft target, but it will more than likely be rolled out against activists of all shades before long.

*yawn*

more hysteria care to name that legislation which is specifically being used to control animal rights nutcases who do far moe damage to the promotion of animal rights than have ever resolved or had changes implamented hell even the god awrful anita rodick managed to change consumer habits more effectively than those jokers.

So again specific piece of legislation not the govt is out to get you bogey man which is bash around.

I'm well aware of misused of legislation to detain protestors both here and aboard. however these laws have always been in place back to the day's of the bean field and indeed most of the current raft of barbairc legislation comes on the trail of that as it was put in place retrospectively to allow the actions taken on that day to become legal...

This doesn't change the fact that AR twats are devisive and utterly utterly useless more than an a to b march...

I'd gladly see them inturned if only so as not to put up with their anti human ranting and whining...

The simple fact is that there is misused legislation which get's applied to legitimate protest and activism often and often it's not even baulked at when it's misused in courts. Lumping these fuckign headcases who have no respect for humanity which it doesn't class as animals, with legitimate activism is to my mind like saying the bnp and the anarchists are all about the working class... it doesn't wash and neither does the concept of AR being legitimate in any sense by any measure activists...

the sooner they grow up and stop their anthropromophication of animals and stop acting like their favourate toy has been placed on the bonfire the sooner their might be intelligent discourse on the whole thing...

as it stands these twat dilute all real discourse on the subject matter to the point of wackjob fundamentalism.

they are neither poster childen for the Activist movement as a whole or for their own cause they are a scourge of any for of direct protest or activism and employ tactics which are detrimental to all of us ...

fuck them in spades...

and again you've still to explain to be what wedge and how...

care to do so...

 

[Bakunin]

... except that they havent. Certain AR campaigns have stepped well beyond the bounds of acceptable protest and have resulted in these laws coming about, not because the state has been picking on AR types - far from it, since the law pre-SOCPA was being abused by certain AR types.

Then how do you explain the fact that nuclear sites were added to this legislation after much successful direct action by Greenpeace, TP and others? Whereas, before the new laws, the most that someone infiltrating a nuclear site was likely to expect was trespass and possibly criminal damage, nowadays they risk a fine of up to £5000 and/or a jail term of up to 51 weeks?

Sounds like targetting of successful activists and campaigns to me.

 

[Bakunin]

*yawn*

more hysteria care to name that legislation which is specifically being used to control animal rights nutcases who do far moe damage to the promotion of animal rights than have ever resolved or had changes implamented hell even the god awrful anita rodick managed to change consumer habits more effectively than those jokers.

So again specific piece of legislation not the govt is out to get you bogey man which is bash around.

I'm well aware of misused of legislation to detain protestors both here and aboard. however these laws have always been in place back to the day's of the bean field and indeed most of the current raft of barbairc legislation comes on the trail of that as it was put in place retrospectively to allow the actions taken on that day to become legal...

This doesn't change the fact that AR twats are devisive and utterly utterly useless more than an a to b march...

I'd gladly see them inturned if only so as not to put up with their anti human ranting and whining...

The simple fact is that there is misused legislation which get's applied to legitimate protest and activism often and often it's not even baulked at when it's misused in courts. Lumping these fuckign headcases who have no respect for humanity which it doesn't class as animals, with legitimate activism is to my mind like saying the bnp and the anarchists are all about the working class... it doesn't wash and neither does the concept of AR being legitimate in any sense by any measure activists...

the sooner they grow up and stop their anthropromophication of animals and stop acting like their favourate toy has been placed on the bonfire the sooner their might be intelligent discourse on the whole thing...

as it stands these twat dilute all real discourse on the subject matter to the point of wackjob fundamentalism.

they are neither poster childen for the Activist movement as a whole or for their own cause they are a scourge of any for of direct protest or activism and employ tactics which are detrimental to all of us ...

fuck them in spades...

and again you've still to explain to be what wedge and how...

care to do so...

Do me a favour, if you're going to branch into a barely coherent and bilious rant at least try and make it a readable one. It makes refuting you so much easier.

The wedge has been explained, for anyone with the brains and comprehension to read and understand plain English. But I'll do it again for the benefit of the hard of thinking. Legislation that is used against AR folk can be, and in all likelihood will be, used against other activists. That simple enough for you?

And the legislation that is used against AR folk, that is ALSO USED against other protest campaigns such as Smash EDO in Brighton, is the anti-harassment legislation originally designed to (rightly) protect private citizens from stalkers, I believe it comes under the Protection From Harassment/Prevention Of Harassment Act.

 

[chymaera]

chymaera

Do you believe sabotage to the NIR database is terrorist? The government does.

Sorry to repeat the question, but I am interested.

What is the NIR database?

 

[agricola]

Then how do you explain the fact that nuclear sites were added to this legislation after much successful direct action by Greenpeace, TP and others? Whereas, before the new laws, the most that someone infiltrating a nuclear site was likely to expect was trespass and possibly criminal damage, nowadays they risk a fine of up to £5000 and/or a jail term of up to 51 weeks?

Sounds like targetting of successful activists and campaigns to me.

The maximum sentence for criminal damage is ten years, so to claim a fine, and a sentence of up to 51 weeks, is evidence of the state gathering powers to make protests harder is clearly wrong.

 

[agricola]

And the legislation that is used against AR folk, that is ALSO USED against other protest campaigns such as Smash EDO in Brighton, is the anti-harassment legislation originally designed to (rightly) protect private citizens from stalkers, I believe it comes under the Protection From Harassment/Prevention Of Harassment Act.

So basically, stalking is wrong unless the stalker can convince themselves they have a good reason for doing it.

 

[chymaera]

The maximum sentence for criminal damage is ten years, so to claim a fine, and a sentence of up to 51 weeks, is evidence of the state gathering powers to make protests harder is clearly wrong.

I would add to that the maximum sentence for arson is life imprisonment.

 

[Bakunin]

The maximum sentence for criminal damage is ten years, so to claim a fine, and a sentence of up to 51 weeks, is evidence of the state gathering powers to make protests harder is clearly wrong.

http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/...368a8297ae46a2c3802572e20042ca09?OpenDocument

 

[Bakunin]

So basically, stalking is wrong unless the stalker can convince themselves they have a good reason for doing it.

I'd say there's a world of difference between the stalking of private citizens, which is clearly wrong, and the use of such laws to clamp down on protest in general.

I'd say that isn't what anti-stalking laws were originally intended for.

 

[chymaera]

http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/...368a8297ae46a2c3802572e20042ca09?OpenDocument

The sites left off of the lists in that document are far more intresting than the ones that are on it. ( That they have been ommitted must mean they are being kept out of civlian police jurisdiction.)

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

What is the NIR database?

That which ID cards will be the bit we are supposed to be responsible for keeping.

 

[chymaera]

That which ID cards will be the bit we are supposed to be responsible for keeping.

You are not being very clear to be honest.

 

[Giles]

Out of interest, do those people on here who feel that it is OK for them to destroy other people's property (labs, equipment, vehicles, machinery, whatever) in order to try to make them do what they want (for example, stop testing and experimenting on animals) think it would be OK if the boot was on the other foot?

For example, if the owners of a facility that had been repeatedly damaged by "protestors" hired some thugs to go to the protesters houses with sledgehammers and smash up their houses and cars, would that be justified in turn?

Or is only OK when they do it to others?

Giles..

 

[Bakunin]

Out of interest, do those people on here who feel that it is OK for them to destroy other people's property (labs, equipment, vehicles, machinery, whatever) in order to try to make them do what they want (for example, stop testing and experimenting on animals) think it would be OK if the boot was on the other foot?

For example, if the owners of a facility that had been repeatedly damaged by "protestors" hired some thugs to go to the protesters houses with sledgehammers and smash up their houses and cars, would that be justified in turn?

Or is only OK when they do it to others?

Giles..

Would that include the regular and brutal violence directed against hunt saboteurs and hunt monitors, perchance?

The theft of activist property during police raids and searches?

Regular police harassment (being followed, stopped, searched, questioned, photographed, filmed etc) of even the most mild of protest groups?

The regular misuse of legislation to crack down on all forms of protest?

And so on?

 

[chymaera]

Would that include the regular and brutal violence directed against hunt saboteurs and hunt monitors, perchance?

But have any sabs had their homes attacked by the hunt fraternity.
Given the nastiness the sabs and antis have handed out over the years it surprises me that there have not been some very serious reprisals against them.

 

[agricola]

I'd say there's a world of difference between the stalking of private citizens, which is clearly wrong, and the use of such laws to clamp down on protest in general.

I'd say that isn't what anti-stalking laws were originally intended for.

No, but the end result - an individual is being unreasonably harrassed - is the same when an AR "protestor" does it as when some obsessed loon does it.

Given that some AR groups consider that the family members and neighbours of people they consider to be involved in animal abuse are all fair game for the harrassment I would say the use of anti-harrassment legislation against the same AR groups to be more than justified.