ARMS COMPANY PUSH PEACEFUL PROTESTORS OVER THE EDGE

Five Years In Prison For Stepping in the Road at EDO

Protestors Vow to Defy High Court Injunction

A controversial High Court interim injunction brought against anti-war protestors, on behalf of arms dealers EDO MBM (at 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’ since it is expected to be a larger than normal, 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 protestors from leaving a narrow grass verge opposite the factory and stepping into the public road 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 steps off the grass verge onto 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 sitight single file.

Mick Foucualt, 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 a very foundation of liberal democracy itself.’

Mr Foucault went on, ‘Whilst EDO allege protestors 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 EDOs’ 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 are not exceptional. 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.

Notes for Journalists

Brighton & Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City

The injunction referred to was served under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act (originally designed to protect women from stalkers) and is the first of its kind directed at activists outside of the animal rights movement. Crucially it is a civil injunction but carries criminal penalties. It affects anyone deemed to be a protestor. Initially EDO/MBM requested a large "exclusion zone" comprising the whole of Home Farm Industrial Estate.

They and Sussex police also wanted to limit demonstrations to two and a half hours, with less thanten people who had to be silent. Judge Gross refusedto impose these conditions at the initial hearing of an interim injunction, which was put in place in the period before the full trial to be heard at the High court in London from November 21st. In his summing up he said, "The right to freedom of _expression is jealously guarded in English law" and consequently refused to impose the requested limits on size, timing or noise made at demonstrations. He also said that he doubted that protesters were 'stalking' employees of EDO MBM.

EDO MBM Technologies Ltd are the sole UK subsidiary of huge U.S arms conglomerate EDO Corp, which was recently named No. 10 in the Forbes list of 100 fastest growing companies. They supply bomb release mechanisms to the US and UK armed forces amongstothers. They supply crucial components for Raytheon's Paveway guided bomb system, widely used in the "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq.

EDO also withdrew a threatened libel action against Indymedia over being named as "warmongers".

Lawson-Cruttenden & Co
Solicitors firm working for EDO have been instrumental in developing the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 from a measure designed to safeguard individuals to a corporate charter to make inconvenient protest illegal. Theyhave pioneered to use of injunctions to create large "exclusion zones". They have secured numerous injunctions against anti-vivisection and anti-GM protestors.

Campaign against EDO MBM
People involved in the anti-EDO campaign include, but are not limited to: local residents, the Brighton Quakers, peace activists, anti-capitalists, Palestine Solidarity groups, human rights groups, trade unionists, academics and students. The campaign started in August 2004 with a peace camp. It's avowed aim is to expose EDO MBM and their complicity in war crimes and to remove them from Brighton.

back to top