Skip Nav | Home | Mobile | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Security | Support Us

World

Activism Labeled "Blackmail" - SHAC UK Sentenced

Green Is The New Red | 22.01.2009 14:03 | SHAC | Animal Liberation | Repression | Social Struggles | World

Activism Labeled “Blackmail,” UK Animal Activists Sentenced to 4-11 Years in Prison



From the Times Online (UK).
Seven animal rights activists in the U.K. were sentenced to up to 11 years in prison Wednesday for “conspiracy to blackmail” in their campaign to shut down the notorious animal testing laboratory Huntingdon Life Sciences.

The judge in the case called the grassroots campaign “urban terrorism” run with “almost military precision.” [1]

The UK prosecution is quite similar to charges brought against seven animal rights activists in the United States, dubbed the SHAC 7. [2] The US activists were sentenced to between one and six years for conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, [3] conspiracy to stalk, stalking and conspiracy to harass using a telecommunications device. Their cases were recently argued before an appeals courts in Philadelphia (here’s a closer look at the hearing). [4]

In both sets of cases, the government linked the defendants to a controversial campaign website that published all news related to the movement to shut down HLS, both legal and illegal. Neither the U.S. nor the U.K. government argued that the defendants committed the illegal acts in the news accounts published on their websites, but that, through their vocal support for those tactics and publication of communiqués, they “conspired” to do so.

The U.S. and U.K. governments argued that, by publishing the addresses, email addresses and phone numbers of corporations tied to HLS, and executives with those corporations, that the defendants were part of a conspiracy (in the U.S., the conspiracy was to commit “terrorism” and “stalk,” in the UK it was a conspiracy to “blackmail.”)

That distinction–between underground activists, and aboveground activists who vocally support them–has been entirely lost on the mainstream press. Breaking a window is not the same as writing about breaking a window, or posting someone else’s account of their window breaking. I’d hope that reporters, of all people, would be able to understand this distinction.

Yet the BBC report makes claims like, “They also sent hoax bomb parcels and made threatening telephone calls to firms telling them to cut links with HLS.” [5] It’s never noted that the defendants were never accused of doing that: they were acts by other activists, outside of SHAC, who supported the mission of the campaign. Even worse, The Guardian recklessly claims that the activists were “considered key figures in the Animal Liberation Front.” [6]

I’ve written at length on this site on the U.S. SHAC 7 case, and want to take a closer look at the U.K. case. Particularly, the fact that these activists, who have been demonized in the press from day one as “terrorists,” were convicted of “conspiracy to blackmail.”

First, setting aside the “conspiracy,” element, let’s look at that term, “blackmail.” To most people, it means making threats (usually threatening to reveal embarrassing or criminal information) in order to get something in return. For instance: blackmailing a CEO that you’ll send the press photos of his debaucherous weekend in Miami unless he pays you ten thousand dollars. Check out this legal definition from West’s Encyclopedia of American Law: [7]

The crime involving a threat for purposes of compelling a person to do an act against his or her will, or for purposes of taking the person’s money or property.

These animal activists weren’t trying to take anyone’s money or property. They were, however, saying that unless HLS stopped these business practices, the activists would do everything they could to shut them down. And unless these corporations that did business with HLS cut their ties, the activists would target them as well.

Unlike other cases that most people would consider “blackmail,” with these activists, the money didn’t matter. All that mattered was the animals.

Calling a political case like this “blackmail” is like, to use a U.S. example, calling the lunch counter civil disobedience of the civil rights movement “blackmail.” The threat of that movement was explicit: continue discriminating against black people, and we’ll continue disrupting your business. Stop discriminating, and we’ll stop protesting. Hasn’t every social movement operated at that basic level of “blackmail”?

Second, even if you disagree with that quick-and-dirty explanation, these activists aren’t even convicted of “blackmail.” They’re convicted of conspiracy to blackmail. Conspiracy charges have been used throughout history against social movements when nothing else sticks. Those kinds of cases have been brought against antiwar activists, civil rights activists, environmental activists and many, many others with the sole purpose of silencing dissent. Conspiracy charges aren’t about bringing criminals to justice, they’re about singling out people perceived as “leaders” in order to set an example and instill fear.

This case, and its U.S. counterpart, are precedent-setting power grabs. They should be a wakeup call for activists in all social movements. If running a controversial website and vocally supporting illegal conduct, through words not actions, can lead to 11 years in prison, what’s next? The National Extremist Coordination Unit, the agency in the UK set up to crack down on activist “terrorists,” is already setting its sights on environmentalists. [8] These government and corporate tactics are fluid. They can flow between countries and between movements. And they’re becoming more and more brazen.

[1]  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5558700.ece
[2]  http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/newred
[3]  http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aepa
[4]  http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2009/01/13/recap-of-the-stop-huntingdon-animal-cruelty-terrorism-appeal-in-philadelphia/
[5]  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7837064.stm
[6]  http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/21/huntingdon-animal-rights
[7]  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/blackmail
[8]  http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=110122&keybold=coal AND protesters

Green Is The New Red
- Homepage: http://greenisthenewred.com

Comments

Hide the following 8 comments

Accept it

22.01.2009 15:03

Just accept it. These people were found guilt of coordinating a campaign of blackmail and menaces. Three of them have already pleaded gulty so you'll just have to get over the fact that these people are disturbed individuals who are very dangerous. Their campaign extended beyond those they primarily targeted to also include neighbours and children.

Dolly Mixture


In English Law

22.01.2009 15:43

Blackmail :-

if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief:

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

The Act uses the word "menaces" which is considered wider in scope than "threat" and involves a warning of any consequences known to be considered unpleasant by the intended victim. This covers the spectrum from actual or threatened violence to the victim or others, through damage to property, to the disclosure of information.


So no need for personal gain

Eagle
- Homepage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail


Are you asking a serious question? (you want an answer?)

22.01.2009 17:11

"Calling a political case like this “blackmail” is like, to use a U.S. example, calling the lunch counter civil disobedience of the civil rights movement “blackmail.” The threat of that movement was explicit: continue discriminating against black people, and we’ll continue disrupting your business. Stop discriminating, and we’ll stop protesting. Hasn’t every social movement operated at that basic level of “blackmail”?"

Not quite -- I'm not going to speak to the details of THIS case as I don't know them. But at least here in the US there could be a very big difference between "threatening an action against a target" and "threatening somebody else for refusing to join you in acting against that target". A rather different sort of "political".

To continue with US examples, and now we'll concnetrate on my part of the US. Here in rural New England we still meet in town meeting to decide things and matters before the meeting aren't voted by secret ballot but perhaps show of hands (if a "voice vote" isn't totally obvious). So you or anybody else in the room gets to see who votes on one side and who the other.

Now let's say that a matter of animal rights has been put on the floor -- say banning the sale of fois gras in resturants in town. And there's a threat put out --- anybody who votes "no" gets a rock through their window. Would you be terribly surprised if I said .......

1) Clear case about "voter intimidation" (could be FEDERAL charges)
2) At the trial, no evidence related to the merits of the matter being voted upon allowed (not relevant WHY voters were to be intimidated).
3) Even though no rocks thrown, no threats actually made, there COULD be a case about "conspiracy to intimidate voters". Mind you, without actual actions on anybody's part might be hard to prove "conspiracy". Depends on how far along planning had gone, how seriously, etc.

As for a "blackmail" charge, well I'm not up on British precedents but rather suspect that same as here not all blackmail has been about obtaining money. If there are NO such precedents I would think that would have been argued by the lawyers and the subject of an appeal (we haven't gotten to that stage yet). Again I must repeat that I know of no details of the case and so haven't a clue why "blackmail" was the charge. But to go back to your example (of the US) well no, I wouldn't call the threat "serve Blacks in your diner of we'll hit you with a sit in" to be "blackmail" but I would call "serve Blacks in your diner or we'll plaster the town with pictures showing you enter a gay bar" to be.

It is NORMAL in a case of "blackmail" that the threatened action is legal in and of itself. So useless to make that claim in defense.

MDN


US law

23.01.2009 08:45

US law has got nothing to do with this case as they were tried under English law.

Judge Dredd


cops

23.01.2009 12:35

Seems to me like we should stop posting on here, full of cops comments

anon


They weren't accused of threatening unlawful acts

23.01.2009 12:54

Blackmail doesn't require that the acts you threaten are unlawful.

It is perfectly legal for me to send compromising photos of someone to the Sun. If I ask them to do something or else I would send those photos, it is blackmail.

The SHAC defendants weren't accused of threatening companies or individuals with unlawful actions, and they never did such things.

All they were accused of doing was threatening to continue a perfectly legal campaign of letter-writing and demonstrations unless the companies stopped doing business with Huntingdon Life Sciences. This is clearly "unpleasant" for the companies, so you could at a stretch regard it as blackmail, but it is what every other campaign does, and it goes against the whole spirit of the law.

The law is just a catch-all law that practically everyone is guilty of, just so they can selectively apply it to people who rock the boat of powerful institutions.

So all the state and pro-animal abuse trolls on here trying to make a distinction between this case and other campaigns are talking total nonsense. It's a clear continuation of the mainstream media campaign to give the general public the wrong impression about what happened.

If you read the reports carefully, when they say "...they attacked people and sent threatening letters...", it is always with an ambiguity over who "they" are. The intention is to deliberately mislead so people assume it refers to the defendants, when it fact it referred to persons unknown, unconnected to the defendants except by a common goal.

The journalists who write this kind of thing should be ashamed of themselves - it is either very shoddy reporting, just regurgitating what state press reports say, or else they are perfectly aware what they are doing and are essentially just acting as stooges of the government and the pharmaceutical industry.

veg@n


British Justice : further down the drain

23.01.2009 15:14

On Jan 6 2009 at Derby Crown Court a 27-year-old man was convicted of causing
death by careless driving while unfit through drink and while disqualified
without insurance : he had twice the legal drink-drive limit of alcohol in him.
He lost control and overturned a car, killing an18-year-old girl passenger.

The court heard he had never legally been entitled to drive and had previously
appeared in court 35 times for nearly 100 offences : his previous convictions
included aggravated vehicle taking, burglary, robbery and violence. He had already
"flouted at least eight driving bans" and had two previous convictions for
dangerous driving.

He was jailed for six-years and eight-months.


On Jan 22 2009 a 41-year-old woman was sentenced to eleven years imprisonment for
"conspiracy to blackmail."

She had been engaged in a lengthy campaign of opposition to a
contract-vivisection company which buys large amounts of animals and subjects
them to torture and death in the process of facilitating the approval of a wide
range of petrochemicals : synthetics which would not pass genuine tests of safety
and efficiency .
The sentencing judge called this "vital biomedical research".

These chemicals then reach the market and proceed to inflict massive, world-wide
damage and death on man, woman, child, fish, animal, bird, trees, lakes ... areas
of the planet.

When The Corporate takes over The State we have, by definition, fascism. When the
police and the legal system is under the control of The Corporate , rather than
The Law of the Land, we have a fascist police state.

This encompasses concepts such as "conspiracy", enabling the police and prosecution
to obtain convictions without the evidence and allowing judges to pass outrageous
sentences.

It is not corruption which brings down a society : it is the acceptance of
corruption.

We must make sure that it is never accepted.

Reposter


Something smelling rotten.....

19.02.2009 09:22

Millions, like myself, support anti cruelty groups like SHAC, resquing helpless animals even if it means kicking down doors, breaking windows, bombing their way through obstructions, because desperate measures beg for desperate actions. With red tape being what it is, together with corruption, allowing the senseless suffering of animals to continue, why wait?
SHAC did what needed to be done with regards to saving animals in trouble. My suspicion is, that some decicionmakes on SHAC's sentencing (judge?) have a financial finger in the scientific experimentation pie.... Anti-cruelty groups will continue fighting for and rescuing vulnerable animals from cold, brutal, abusing maniacs - and no puny little judge, sentencing animal lovers to years of jailtime for doing the right thing, is going to stop us! In fact, our eye is now on the judge, and I'm speaking on behalf of the millions worldwide who feel that a great injustice had been done to the members of SHAC.

nici
mail e-mail: niciwasserfall@gmail.com
- Homepage: http://google


Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

/regional publish include --> /regional search include -->

World Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Server Appeal Radio Page Video Page Indymedia Cinema Offline Newsheet

secure Encrypted Page

You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.

If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech