HOUSE OF LORDS BACKS UP COPS’ ARBITRARY DETENTION OF PROTESTERS
Yesterday the House of Lords of Appeal gave their judgement on 2001 ‘May Day Detainee Case’. Lois Austin, the Appellant in the 2001 ‘May Day Detainee Case’ expressed anger at the Judgement which supported the Court of Appeal finding that the Metropolitan police acted correctly by detaining Lois and several thousand peaceful anti-capitalist protesters in Oxford Circus on May Day, 2001.
Lois said: “I am angry and outraged at the Lords judgement, which found there was no ‘arbitrary deprivation of liberty’”. I and thousands of other peaceful anti-globalisation protesters were detained by police for nine hours, in a confined space, and without water, food or toilet facilities. To any reasonable person, this clearly amounted to a deprivation of liberty and the police action on May Day 2001 breaches European Convention on human rights”
“The Lords have judged the police can take such draconian action, as they deem fit, against protesters. Since 2001, we have seen the police use similar detainment tactics against other peaceful demonstrators, including against environmental protests and recently against Gaza war demonstrators. These repressive police tactics are an attempt to intimidate protesters and the right to demonstrate.
“We will be consulting our lawyers over appealing to the European Court. We will continue to campaign for the right to assembly, to demonstrate and to free speech.
“In the court of world opinion, the ideas of the protesters on May Day 2001 - young people and trade unionists – are vindicated. We campaigned against imperialist wars, and against fat cats, neo-liberalism and globalisation. We warned of the catastrophe these policies would bring onto the heads of the poor and working people around the world, despite government and police attempts to muzzle our campaign.
“Our fight against poverty and exploitation continues, as does our campaign to have the basic democratic rights to protest.”
I’am sure the right to protest without being detained by the police for hours would stand a better chance in the European Court.
Comment by Neil Williams — 29 January, 2009 @ 10:26 am
Maybe Neil, maybe.
I have a feeling the dreaded term, “proportionality” may weigh against Lois at the ECHR i.e. that in the context of MacDonalds and Starbuck being smashed up by fucktard psuedo-anarchists (to use the technical term) at previous demo’s (often in the context of police provocation to be sure, and of course there is always the outside posability that it was done by police provocatuers) the Met will probably be able to argue their action was ‘proportionate’ to protecting property.
I’m not saying what the police are arguing is correct or that even if the fucktards hadn’t smashed up shops in other anti-cap demos (and didn’t capitalism just teeter on the brink at the destruction of these symbols of consumerism!), the police wouldn’t have used the same tactics against the protestors.
But it does illustrate not just the utter futility of such tactics but also how it helps to give a cover to the actions of the state.
Thanks guys!
Comment by Neil — 29 January, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
From Indy media UK
Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who ‘elicits or attempts to elicit information about [members of armed forces] … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836646
Actions are planed
http://www.pledgebank.com/s76photo
http://www.flickr.com/groups/1011510@N21/
Please pass onto all your contacts, post into the groups your involved with and spread like wildfire this has simply gone to far
see www.fitwatch.blogspot.com/ now one is not anti police, but if there upto no good, taking images of us on actions so forth then we should be taking images of them for the wider public good.
Comment by Flea bite — 29 January, 2009 @ 4:14 pm