Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 13. April 2006 / Time Line April 13, 2006
Version 3.012. April 2006, 14. April 2006
04/13/2006
AWE Aldermaston: Terrorism Act used to prevent protest
Aldermaston Women's Peace Camp(aign) Press Release
Peaceful protest against the UK's nuclear weapons at AWE
Aldermaston and other "designated sites" will from today be
criminalised under Section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2006. [1]
"These provisions are totally unnecessary and completely
disproportionate," said a spokeswoman for AWPC. "The Ministry of
Defence police already have the powers to arrest and detain
protestors within the perimeter fences at AWE Aldermaston or
Burghfield under existing criminal law. [2]
According to the Ministry of Defence, "At each of the [designated]
sites there has been persistent activity by protestors who, by
actively trespassing, place themselves at risk of being mistaken as
terrorists. It has always been difficult for security forces
protecting MOD sites to determine the difference between trespasser
and potential terrorist". [3]
AWPC believes that these measures have been introduced in an
attempt to stop the increasing opposition at AWE Aldermaston to the
government's plans to build the next generation of nuclear weapons,
and in particular, the construction of new facilities, including
the £20m Orion laser facility. "We're committed to using all
nonviolent means possible to stop the government building weapons
of mass destruction; if that makes us terrorists, then the
government have a very strange definition of terrorists".
Concerns about the provisions of successive Terrorism Acts have
been highlighted by Amnesty International: "The danger is that
people may end up being prosecuted for political reasons for the
legitimate exercise of rights enshrined in international law.
[4]
Denial of the right to lawful protest
According to the MoD, the introduction of this "offence will
therefore protect the general public's democratic right to protest
by ensuring that any such protests are conducted in a safe and
controlled environment." [5]
However, in conjunction with the provisions of the Terrorism Act
2006, the Ministry of Defence also intend to introduce by-laws at
AWE Aldermaston, [6] The proposed by-laws will make almost all
traditional forms of "democratic protest" outside AWE Aldermaston
illegal by prohibiting persons from taking part in, attending or
organising any meeting or procession. They also prohibit the
distribution or display of "any leaflet, sign, poster, notice or
any similar form of communication"
These provisions are in complete breach of the provisions of the
Human Rights Act, which enforce in UK law Article 10 and 11 of the
European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [7]
which guarantee the right to lawful protest.
The government's decision to bring two new pieces of legislation
into force for Aldermaston - both of which attempt to place
limitations on the freedom to protest - comes at a time of
increasing opposition to developments at the site and ahead of a
public announcement on the future of Britain's nuclear weapons
programme.
Notes
[1] Section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2006 amends the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA), and provides for the
offence of criminal trespass at nuclear sites licensed by the
Health and Safety Executive, entering into force on 13 April
2006
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060011_en.pdf
According to an MoD press release (3 April 2006) these sites
include the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston, Atomic
Weapons Establishment Burghfield and Her Majesty's Naval Base
Devonport.
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?ReleaseID=194233&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromSearch=True
For previous arrests at other military sites under the SOCPA, see
for example, "Helen and Sylvia, the new face of terrorism"
(Independent, 6 April 2006)
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article356033.ece
[2] For example, Criminal Damage Act 1971 and Aggravated Trespass
[s.68 and 69, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994]
[3] Serious Organised Crime and Police Act,
http://www.defence-estates.mod.uk/byelaws/Internet/Intro.html.
Defence Estates state that "The Military Lands Byelaws and the
SOCAP powers, although capable of being used independently, are
mutually supportive and together provide a layered form of legal
protection for the Ministry of Defence."
[4] "Amnesty International has repeatedly expressed concern about
the vagueness and breadth of the definition of "terrorism", which
leaves scope for political bias in making a decision to bring a
prosecution. [S]uch a broad and vague definition easily lends
itself to abusive police practices. In the UK peaceful protestors
have been stopped, searched and items have been seized from them on
the basis of the broad powers that are granted under anti-terrorism
legislation to the police.
All the subsequent anti-terrorism laws have been based on the broad
and vague definition of "terrorism" set out in the Terrorism Act
2000. The danger is that people may end up being prosecuted for
political reasons for the legitimate exercise of rights enshrined
in international law. UK: Human rights: a broken promise, AI Index:
EUR 45/004/2006, 23 February 2006.
[5] See note 3.
[6] See Link to "Advertised Proposed New Byelaws" at
http://www.defence-estates.mod.uk/byelaws/Internet/Intro.html
[7] Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK government has a duty
to facilitate "legitimate democratic protest" , including the right
to Freedom of Expression (Article 10, ECHR) which includes the
right to free speech, and the right to display and/or distribute
leaflets, banners, notices etc.; likewise, the right to Freedom of
Assembly is protected by Article 11, ECHR.
04/13/2006
Florida councilman won't swear support for US
By Jane Sutton
MIAMI (Reuters) - A newly elected councilman in a tiny Florida
village has refused to take an oath of office pledging support for
the U.S. government because he adamantly opposes the war in
Iraq.
Councilman-elect Basil Dalack, 76, a Korean War veteran, won an
uncontested election to fill a vacancy on the five-person council
of the southeast Florida town of Tequesta.
But he is refusing to take the oath of office -- due to be
administered on Thursday -- because the oath requires him to
"support, protect and defend" the government. His decision comes at
a time when polls show ebbing support for the war. Dalack said he
believes the U.S. war in Iraq is unjust and "an abomination." He
said he could not sleep at night if he took a pledge implying
blanket support for the U.S. government...
 |
 |