[GJM] Animal Rights Activism and the Law of TORTS....

[ecotort at gn.apc.org]

Subject:

	

Re: [peopleincommon] sequani sentence

Date:

	

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:06:37 +0100

From:

	

ecotort at gn.apc.org

 

	

 

 

	

 

 

	

 

 

	

 



Hi all….

here is an idea about "animal rights and TORT law" from the ecotort 
brain-cell...

1. reasonable prudent, and well-intentioned behaviour is not criminal 
(see http://www.ecotort.gn.apc <http://www.ecotort.gn.apc.org>.org 
<http://www.ecotort.gn.apc.org> for proof of this)
2. any person is allowed to use "reasonable force" (the same as a police 
officer) to prevent a crime, or the "reasonably foreseeable likelihood" 
of a crime, from being committed.
3. "a crime is committed when a person does something knowingly, which 
is reasonably foreseeable as likely to injure another person" (btw. in 
law, a company is a person).
4. we need to show that animal rights activists are using "reasonable 
force" to prevent what is reasonably perceived as a crime.
5. I understand that in general, the results of vivisection and animal 
testing are highly unreliable because different animals have quite 
different physiologies compared with humans, hence testing on animals 
does not give reliable information as to safety for humans   (??? e.g.. 
was thalidomide tested on animals ???).
6. if this is so, then unreliable testing of "potentially highly 
dangerous substances" on animals is certainly "reasonably foreseeable as 
likely to cause horrific injury" to the  human recipients of those 
potentially highly dangerous substances.
7. therefore using such unreliable results knowingly is reckless and 
criminal.
8. to peacefully demonstrate (without even swearing!) while trying to 
prevent such potentially horrific injury (as was caused for instance by 
thalidomide...) could only be seen as reasonable, prudent, and 
well-intentioned, and therefore as "not criminal in any shape or form" 
(see http://www.ecotort.gn.apc <http://www.ecotort.gn.apc.org>.org 
<http://www.ecotort.gn.apc.org> for proof that reasonable, prudent, and 
well-intentioned behaviour is not criminal).

hoping the above is of some use...
http://www.ecotort.blogspot.com

I am sending this out to my mailing list as well, (with names and email 
addresses deleted from the previous postings).

yours sincerely, Nick St Clare, at the EcoTort Theatre, in Hackney.



on    08/06/2008  at 13:06
Jane wrote:

Hi John,

 

I think that a picnic with the Sequani people is a great idea. I'll 
certainly ask them. Feel free to also contact them - Phone: 01452 539673 
Email: info at stopsequani.co.uk <mailto:info at stopsequani.co.uk>

Chris posted those updates and in his defence I would say that when the 
people involved really haven't done anything wrong, it probably didn't 
occur to him that it would come across as though he were leaving stuff 
out. As I said in my reply to you - none of the defendants were accused 
of violence or intimidation. I can't stress this enough. I think you're 
having trouble believing they were facing five years for simply 
peacefully protesting because a) you haven't familiarized yourself with 
SOCPA 145/6 and b) if you have seen it you have not fully realized that 
it allows peaceful demonstrations to be classed as 'causing harm' to an 
animal testing company and its suppliers.  

 

This is what is so worrying about this precedent. It has criminalized 
peaceful protest!! You must see that the government can make up any law 
they like in order to squash dissent - SOCPA 132 for instance! - and the 
reason they have done it so blatantly in this case is because of the 
negative image animal protest has. You say 4 and a half years is way 
over the top as though Sean was guilty of something and should have 
received a lesser sentence - he was guilty of nothing we are not doing! 
Chris said to me after the verdict that they are still racking their 
brains to try and see exactly how he has broken the law. It is the 
all-encompassing term of 'harm' which has sent him to prison, and when 
they draft a similar one applied to us we could also be behind bars. 
Below is Schnews coverage of the trial I urge you to read:

 

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

Britain’s longest running animal rights trial is nearing its end after 
18 weeks. The result has serious implications for civil liberties. As we 
reported back in SchNEWS 616 
<http://sequani.wordpress.com/wp-admin/news616.htm> seven defendants 
were on trial under the new SOCPA Laws for campaigning against Ledbury 
animal testing laboratory Sequani. As of going to press one man, Sean 
Kirtley has received a guilty verdict while three others were acquitted 
and two are still awaiting a verdict. (One plead guilty early in 
proceedings in attempt to strike a bargain). Sean has now been remanded 
to HMP Winson Green in Birmingham.

The seven were initially busted two years ago in Operation Tornado, 
which has ended up costing £4m (2% of the entire police budget for West 
Mercia for that year). Police seized computers, phones, personal mail 
and clothing from houses and workplaces They even seized a packet of Rizla!

The case taken out under section 145 of SOCPA, which makes it illegal to 
‘Interference with contractual relationships so as to harm animal 
research organisation� The interesting twist is that instead of a 
straightforward charge the activists were charged with conspiracy, which 
not only carries a heavier sentence but allows a much broader range of 
evidence in.1000s of hours of video footage and a detailed analysis of 
mobile phone records was used to try and build a picture of a hierarchy 
within the campaign. Based on records of who called who and when police 
tried to build a picture of how the campign was structured. Defendants 
were asked to provide reasons for virtually every phone call they’d 
made to each other. One supporter told us “/They’ve built a 
ludicrously skewed picture on what were effectivley phone calls between 
a group of friends – they were desperate to place Sean as the leader 
– he’s no such thing/�.

There was no evidence of intimidation or harassment or section 5 style 
offences by Sean Kirtley although he has now been found guilty as he was 
seen as the organiser of most of the demonstrations and was considered 
by police to be “number 1�. The main plank of the evidence was that 
forensics from his home computer showed that he had updated the campaign 
website.

Despite being a keen foxhunter and paid up member of pro-shooting 
lobby-group BASC, Judge Ross refused to step down. His involvement in 
the killing of animals and obvious opposition to the idea of animal 
welfare (never mind animal rights) would have on many levels affected 
his judgement. The trial went ahead under a fearsome set of reporting 
restrictions. The jury were bussed in on a daily basis and told that 
they could be a target for animal rights extremists. At the same time in 
the same building murder trial witnesses and jury members had to make 
their own way into the court.

People were frisked as they entered the public gallery and some were 
ejected for wearing “animal rights� clothing – even down to a 
shirt which read “Vegan�. One campaigner told us “/Human rights 
organisation Liberty were hassled constantly by ourselves and other 
activists to get them to shed light on what we could see would be a time 
bomb clusterfuck for movements other than our own. They told us they 
were too busy/.�

Our court correspondent told us “So to sum up, Sean Kirtley is in 
prison and facing a possible 5 year sentence for holding placards, 
attending demonstrations just because people phoned him and said, 
“shall we go and demo Sequani this weekend�. He was not the 
organiser but it was far too much of an efficient campaign to go 
unnoticed by those who stand to profit from vivisection. The campaign is 
not over,a change of tactics is being strongly discussed within our 
group and we plan on taking the fight to new levels over the coming 
months.�

Filed under: News / Updates <http://wordpress.com/tag/news-updates/>, 
Sequani 6 <http://wordpress.com/tag/sequani-6/> | No Comments » 
<http://sequani.wordpress.com/2008/05/18/schnews-article-about-sequani-six/#respond> 


Please Support Animal Liberation Prisoner Sean Kirtley! 
<http://sequani.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/please-support-animal-liberation-prisoner-sean-kirtley/>

Posted on May 15, 2008 by westernanimalrightsnetwork

Our friend and fellow Sequani activist Sean Kirtley was remanded 
yesterday and awaits sentencing in relation to the 18 week Sequani trial 
and Operation Tornado.

Please send him your messages of solidarity and support!
Sean Kirtley (WC6977), HMP Birmingham Prison, Winson Green Road, 
Birmingham B18 4AS

We will find out what can be sent to Sean in prison very soon,

We will also be setting up a support MySpace and Blog for Sean in due 
course!

Filed under: News / Updates <http://wordpress.com/tag/news-updates/>, 
Sequani 6 <http://wordpress.com/tag/sequani-6/> | 1 Comment » 
<http://sequani.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/please-support-animal-liberation-prisoner-sean-kirtley/#comments> 


Sequani Trial Update - One Remanded - Three not guilty so far… 
<http://sequani.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/sequani-trial-update-one-remanded-three-not-guilty-so-far/>

Posted on May 14, 2008 by westernanimalrightsnetwork

One of our friends Sean Kirtley was remanded in custody today after a 
jury found him guilty of Conspiracy to interfere with contractual 
relationships so as to harm animal research organisation. Rose Golding, 
Gemma Astbury and Wendy Clark have been found not guilty. Pauline 
Burgess and Jo Goodyear should have a verdict tomorrow.

Sean is a tireless campaigner for animals and we hope to put a support 
network in place for him when he has been sentenced and assigned a 
prison number.

It would seem that someone was needed to make the four million pound 
operation tornado case look like it wasn’t an astronomical waste of cash.

So what did Sean do to end up in prison, what was the evidence that took 
a father away from his family and ended him in prison.

Sean was responsible for the SSAT website. He never swore at people on a 
demonstration, he never used illegal direct action to further the 
campaign against Sequani. He never intimidated anyone or wrote 
threatening letters.
The prosecution had him pegged as the organiser of most of the 
demonstrations at Sequani and suppliers and used hearsay evidence and 
phone logs to make him seem like a hub for times and places of 
demonstrations.

We all try to do what we can as part of a campaign against a place like 
Sequani, Sean had skills which allowed him to maintain the SSAT and he 
was not a leader he just did everything he could to help animals inside 
Sequani. Police saw the website as a threat and therefore Sean as a more 
effective activist from the group which made him a target for anti 
protest police.

Needless to say, the campaign continues and with love and rage in our 
hearts we will battle on through the police bullshit and flawed 
legislation until all are the cages are empty at Sequani and the horrors 
that animals face inside daily stops forever.

We will update the Stop Sequani site with details of how to write to 
Sean etc ASAP.

Thank you to everyone who has supported the Sequani Six over the past 18 
weeks.

SSC

Filed under: News / Updates <http://wordpress.com/tag/news-updates/>, 
Sequani 6 <http://wordpress.com/tag/sequani-6/> | No Comments » 
<http://sequani.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/sequani-trial-update-one-remanded-three-not-guilty-so-far/#respond> 


Jury out to decide the fate of the Sequani Six (longest AR trial 
in history) 
<http://sequani.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/jury-out-to-decide-the-fate-of-the-sequani-six-longest-ar-trial-in-history/>

Posted on May 7, 2008 by westernanimalrightsnetwork

We have heard the lies, we have heard the half truths, we have heard 
hearsay evidence being presented to the jury even though it fell outside 
the indictable period. We know about the judge being a self confessed 
hunter. So what justice for the Sequani Six?

We can only hope that the jury through the bullshit and see that these 
people, our friends, our family, our fellow activists as the caring 
individuals they are.

With so many conflicting accounts and outright lies by those heavily 
invested in animal experimentation at Sequani and the government 
appointed protectors of the vivisection industry we can only assume that 
it is true that these activists are being fitted up in order to set a 
new president for activists targeting industry in the UK.

This is a modern day version of first they came for the animal rights 
activists. How long before your movement is affected by every changing 
movement specific SOCPA laws protecting those involved with GM / Arms 
Trade / Climate Change etc?

The simple fact is that the UK government can see people organising 
against the corporations that are destroying this planet and its 
inhabitants and they are starting a war against the right to organise 
and assemble. Divide and conquer would seem to be the tactic, the animal 
rights movement it’s not really my thing so what do we care?

Imagine SOCPA legislation which takes a minor public order offence and 
turns it into a five year sentence for swearing with others on an anti 
arms trade demonstration on the basis that others organised the demo and 
phoned other people to see if they were attending (conspiring are you?). 
Just being friends with other activists makes you co-conspirators in New 
Labours, New Britain.

We still would like answers, like why the press restrictions? Why, when 
gang land murderers are in other courtrooms in Birmingham Crown Court 
are the press allowed freedom to report yet when a groundbreaking case 
which has far reaching implications for ALL of our civil liberties is 
ongoing there is a media blackout? Why were the jury bussed in each day 
like they were at serious risk of animal rights terrorists getting to 
them? But witnesses and jury members for gang related murder cases or 
terror trials had no special circumstances.

We will let everyone know the second we hear anything, either way please 
raise a glass for our friends today and a huge thank you to everyone who 
supported the Six and sent us a messages during the longest animal 
rights trial in history.

Jack
Stop Sequani Campaign

Filed under: News / Updates <http://wordpress.com/tag/news-updates/>, 
Sequani 6 <http://wordpress.com/tag/sequani-6/> | No Comments » 
<http://sequani.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/jury-out-to-decide-the-fate-of-the-sequani-six-longest-ar-trial-in-history/#respond> 





 

 

Date: Sunday, 8 June, 2008, 12:06 AM

Hi Jane,

Thanks for the reply.

I don't think you need to worry about me supporting different rules for
protests on different issues. I certainly do not think the rules should
be different in the case of animal rights activists, compared to other
activists.

I was really just commenting on what tactics I might possibly support
myself for protests on different issues, and as I said the 4 and a half
years seems way over the top. I think it would be over the top for
protest on any issue. Of course I would not want to see Mark Barrett
imprisoned for any length of time for involvement in People in Common
(hope that reassures you Mark!).

In respect of the anti-Sequani protests, I think my point was that, as I
had not seen the original website, and due to what I saw as a lack of
detail in the Indymedia trial report, that it is difficult for me to see
what exactly it was promoting. For example whether it was promoting
harassment of individuals employed by the company or protesting outside
their homes. It would only be on that basis that I would have been able
to decide whether to give support in the way that the earlier reports
were inviting (for travel expenses to the Court and whatever else). I
thought those earlier reports were also vague on the details. If the
campaigners involved are as innocent as you are portraying (and I
certainly do not discount that possibility), then I think their
communications could do more justice to themselves and their campaign
and maybe help to discredit SOCPA 145 (even if I would not actually
agree entirely with their views or have any desire to get involved with
their campaign). I am not saying their reports were completely bad, but
maybe could have been improved a bit.

As you say you were at the trial yourself you will likely know what kind
of evidence (or "evidence", in quotes) was used to secure this
conviction. Perhaps you may have also seen the original website referred
to?

If there was support for the idea then maybe there could be a People in
Common picnic meeting some time, inviting the anti-Sequani campaigners
to talk about their experiences and allowing us to ask questions (if
they wanted to do that).

John
`

 



On 7/6/2008,  

 

Hi John,
>It's interesting you say your views on restricting protest would be
different for animal demos. Why? The right to peacefully protest does not
depend on what you're protesting about, it's simply a fundamental
right. If we accept restrictions on it because we don't feel particularly
strongly about, or disagree with, a cause then we have lost - or never 
had - an
understanding of what civil liberties are. They must apply universally 
or they
are meaningless and any erosion of them for one group should set alarm bells
ringing at a deafening volume for everyone wanting to exercise them. Do you
honestly think your group won't be next?
>
>The animal rights community has been targeted first because the public
perception of them as mindless extremists has been so successfully shaped by
the media. Your email would be music to the government's, the police's
and the drug companies' ears. They would be ecstatic to know even fellow
activists are finding it hard to believe this guy didn't somehow deserve to
be punished. And if it's only animals he was fighting for, well, his civil
liberties being taken away doesn't matter quite so much. To answer the
question posed in the article about why SOCPA 145/6 were added to that 
act, let
me sum it up in one word - PROFITS. Let me make it clear to you that 
Sean did
nothing our group is not doing right now. We of all people should not 
find that
so hard to believe. He set up the site, he posted dates and times of 
demos, and
phone records and hearsay evidence were used to prove he was an
'organizer' of the campaign There was never any
>  suggestion whatsoever that he took part in, or promoted, violence. This
was also true of all the other defendants. Violence was never an issue. Sean
did nothing Mark Barrett is not doing right now. How would you feel if 
he went
down for four years? How would you cope with hearing other activists say,
'well we're not really too bothered about the things he and People in
Common are campaigning for so it doesn't matter as much?
>
>Sections 145 and 146 have been specifically created to stop any protest
against animal research companies to protect their massive profits and those
who did it are relying on the fact that people will react exactly as you 
did in
your email when they tested it in court. The broad defention of the word
'harm' and the wording relating to causing distress mean that simply
standing and shouting slogans is now enough to send you to court facing 
a five
year stretch. That is what all the defendants were facing. None of them were
accused of violence or intimidation. I sat in court and heard the judge 
say to
the jury that one of the accused was heard to call an employee of Sequani a
speciesist No doubt said employee didn't like being called this - if he
knew what it meant, which would beg the question how could he caused 
distress
by it - but that is called freedom of expression!
>
>The article commneted: 'It is to be hoped that the police do not
believe that annoying communications, letter writing and website development
deserve time in prison' What do they think has happened?? That is exactly
why Sean now languishes in a prison cell. This trial has dire 
implications for
all of us and the sooner we recognize that and stop being influenced by 
our own
prejudices and media propaganda the better because believe me, you will be
facing a five year jail term one day if you don't fight this now.
>
>

 

 

>Date: Thursday, 5 June, 2008, 7:40 AM
>
>I do not know what you are thinking about my reply, but I saw this
>article on the same subject which others might be interested in:
>Organised crime law crushes animal rights duo
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/04/organised_crime_law/
>
>I can see how the sentence of 4 and a half years is probably way over the
>top. However (from the article) it seems possible that this is not just
>about simple protest/demonstration. I can also see how people should be
>allowed to use persuasion as a part of a political campaign. Not having
>been at the trial, I do not know what the evidence was against this
>pair. I thought some of the reports on Indymedia were a bit too brief,
>not giving details like what was actually on the website. So it is
>difficult to tell what the full range of activities being promoted by
>this group was.
>
>I suppose my concerns have been more about having anti-war protests (not
>that it is going very well), where human beings are being attacked and
>killed. And when it comes to animal rights my views would probably be
>different.
>
>Please discuss...
>
>
>
>On 30/5/2008, >
> >"for 'organizing demonstrations'"
> >
> >I thought it was for (allegedly) interfering with contractual relations
> >(under SOCPA 145) - not for organizing demonstrations.
> >

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://globaljusticemovement.net/pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20080715/39d0df1a/attachment-0001.html