EDO interim injunction latest

[BRIGHTON, UK. Friday 27th May 2005]

A controversial High Court interim injunction brought
against anti-war protesters, on behalf of arms dealers
EDO MBM (a unit of EDO CORP) is now in force in
Brighton, and could be a danger to the life and
liberty of any member of the public wishing to
peacefully protest outside the factory on Home Farm
Road. In defiance of the injunction, a large
demonstration is planned by protest group Smash EDO on
Tuesday (31st May).

If enforced by the police the interim injunction will
require demonstrators at the event dubbed ‘The Big
One’ to risk their lives by standing close to a dangerous
cliff edge in order to avoid arrest and imprisonment
as ‘stalkers’ for simply standing on the public
highway.

A ‘no-protest area’ identified in the Interim
Injunction that mainly consists of the premises of EDO
MBM on Home Farm Road, also includes the public
highway (both road and footpath) in front of the
factory. Anyone who stands there during the
demonstration is in breach of the restrictions granted
by the High Court and could go to prison for five
years.

The interim injunction forbids protesters from stepping
off a narrow grass verge into a public highway
despite the fact that Home Farm Road is a cliff
top cul de sac which has virtually no
traffic. Under the ‘Stalkers law’ injunction, Sussex
Police will be able to arrest anybody who sets foot on
the public road and charge them with stalking
the employees of the company. But the
grass verge, just a few feet from the cliff edge, is
not large enough for more than a couple of dozen
people to assemble other than in single file.

Mick Foucault, a spokesperson from the Smash EDO
campaign said,

‘ We are expecting more than just a couple of dozen
people at this demonstration. It has been widely
advertised and there are a lot of people angry about
this attack on the right to protest. As was argued in
the High court this injunction is in clear violation
of Article 1O and 11 of the European Convention of
Human Rights, which protects freedoms of expression
and assembly. The ECHR is UK law under the Human
Rights Act. If enforced by the police the inherent
dangers in this injunction to life and liberty of
demonstrators, could collectively punish the public
for expressing their opposition to the US owned bomb
factory in their town that supplies the illegal war in
Iraq. In UK Human Rights law it is clear that the
right to peacefully assemble and protest can not be
allowed to be discouraged by threats to demonstrators
from anyone (including the police) who might wish to
silence political dissent. This is meant to be the very
foundation of liberal democracy itself.’

Mr Foucault went on, ‘Whilst EDO allege protesters are
‘harassing’ them, the evidence so far is based almost
wholly on anonymous allegations which are still
unexamined by a full trial, yet our demonstrations are
already being severely restricted. EDOs corporate
lawyers have cynically misused this law that was meant
to protect women from stalkers, for their own
warmongering profit motives. We are all disgusted by
this. I for one will not risk my life on the cliff
edge, but will certainly not be intimidated into
stopping my protest against EDO. I believe it’s my
moral duty to go on protesting. The way it looks to me
though is that I have a tough choice, to break the
law, or break my neck.’

Judge Gross, heard the pre-trial case at The Royal
Courts of Justice in London, last month and granted
EDO a severely curtailed interim injunction claiming,
‘freedom of expression is a right jealously guarded in
English law.’ EDO had asked for a complete ban on
protest other than for two hours a week on a Thursday
afternoon in silence, and a limited number of ten
people. They also asked for a draconian permanent
half- mile exclusion zone, but the judge refused to
grant these terms of the order failing to find
evidence of harassment serious enough to merit such
measures. ‘If there is to be any exclusion zone I want
it to be a very small one’, he said.’ ‘No-one should
be afraid of taking a walk in the park’. He also said
the year long protest at the factory should be allowed
to ‘run its course’, and that there should be no
restrictions on numbers, times or duration of protests
because of this.

He threw out most of EDO's drafted terms of the order
describing them as ‘like a sledgehammer to crack a
nut’. The defendants insist that the Human Rights Act
interprets restrictions of peaceful protest as
something that should only happen under exceptional
circumstances, and that the circumstances of this case
do not meet these criteria. They also insist that in previous
human rights cases any measure that might discourage
peaceful assembly has been shown by extension to be in
contravention of this basic principle of freedom of
expression in a democratic society.


=============================================================


SMASH EDO

‘THE BIG ONE’

Venue: Meet up Entrance to Wild Park , Lewes Road,
Brighton

Time: 3PM-6PM

Date: Tuesday 31st May 2005

Public Meeting at Friends Meeting House, Ship Street afterwards from 7-9 with McLibel 2 Helen Steele and Dave Morris