Scotland (central & southern)
The action dates and protest gatherings page is once again working! Apologies, we accidentally deleted it!
If there's any ecological actions that are openly advertised, protest camps or campaign gatherings, that you want to add to it, do it through the submit report link and in the subject, make it clear it's to add to the calendar. Thanks.
The action dates and protest gatherings page is once again working! Apologies, we accidentally deleted it!
If there's any ecological actions that are openly advertised, protest camps or campaign gatherings, that you want to add to it, do it through the submit report link and in the subject, make it clear it's to add to the calendar. Thanks.
22nd April Over recent years there have been many attempts to stop UK activists protesting against Europe’s largest animal testing laboratory; Huntingdon Life Sciences. Activists have been arrested, raided, imprisoned and banned from taking part in the campaign.
22nd April Over recent years there have been many attempts to stop UK activists protesting against Europe’s largest animal testing laboratory; Huntingdon Life Sciences. Activists have been arrested, raided, imprisoned and banned from taking part in the campaign. Despite these attempts, SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) has been a groundbreaking campaign which has succeeded in almost bankrupting the multi-national corporation. Hundreds of companies have refused to deal with HLS after learning about the horrors happening to animals inside the torture lab – including some of the world’s largest business and financial institutions.
There is an ongoing battle taking place in the UK, with SHAC trying to shut down HLS and vested business and state interests trying to shut down SHAC. The desperation on the part of the state has lead to the introduction of new laws criminalising legitimate protest and the harassment and targeting of peaceful and lawful campaigners.
On 18th May 2012, three people were arrested in connection with a protest at a newly exposed supplier of Huntingdon Life Sciences. A fourth person was also arrested a few weeks later. The four were accused of SOCPA 145 (interfering with a contractual relationship so as to harm an animal research organisation) and SOCPA 146 (intimidation of persons connected with an animal research organisation). They were bailed with strict conditions, such as banning them from campaigning against HLS and ordering them to live and sleep only at designated addresses.
SOCPA 145 and 146 were introduced in 2005 to class even minor public order offences against vivisection as serious crimes and to enable higher sentencing of anti-vivisection protesters. An activist found guilty of a civil wrong whilst protesting against vivisection now faces up to 5 years imprisonment, whereas someone committing the same act in connection with another issue (anti-fascism, environmentalism etc) could expect to receive a small fine.
The four were rebailed numerous times over the next 8 months, although it is extremely bad practice (and fairly unusual) for the police to keep suspects on bail for such a prolonged period without reaching a decision. The delay behind this became apparent on Thursday 17th January 2013, when the four suspects and another two people, were raided and arrested – this time for “conspiracy” to commit SOCPA 145 and 146. This offence was allegedly in relation to SHAC and took place between October 2011 – June 2012, covering 25 incidents, including the protest the four suspects were already on bail for (which has now been dropped as an individual charge). All six were questioned and eventually bailed to return to the police station in April, again with strict conditions and this time banned from communicating with each other.
A seventh person was arrested in this case shortly afterwards and bailed along with the others.
During the raids, the policed forced entry to a number of properties, including those of the suspects’ partners and mistakenly, their neighbours. Many items were seized, including electronics and personal items unconnected to the case and belonging to both the defendants and other people living in the properties.
The most worrying aspect of this case is the lack of evidence of criminal activity against the defendants as individuals. As with previous cases, “conspiracy” is being used to group people together, without the need for evidence against them individually. During the police interviews they mentioned a number of protests against companies dealing with HLS (some of which the defendants were accused of attending), as well as direct action (although there is no suggestion or evidence that the defendants had any knowledge or involvement in this). Beneath the legal terminology, the only thing they’re accused of doing themselves, is taking part in protests.
This case is one of the most recent examples of the lengths the UK authorities are going to in their attempt to stop people campaigning against vivisection and especially HLS. When people are no longer able to attend a lawful protest without being accused of taking part in a criminal conspiracy, it is our responsibility to speak out.
In an atmosphere of increasing repression against activists and the criminalisation of effective campaigns, it is important that we show our solidarity for those involved and form a strong network to support the UK animal rights movement.
April 22 2014 A major wild salmon producer has said it is giving up the culling of seals after protests at a harbour in the north east of Scotland.
The Montrose-based Scottish Wild Salmon Company claimed it had been confronted by activists at Gardenstown harbour.
April 22 2014 A major wild salmon producer has said it is giving up the culling of seals after protests at a harbour in the north east of Scotland.
The Montrose-based Scottish Wild Salmon Company claimed it had been confronted by activists at Gardenstown harbour.
The company said it was removing firearms from its operations, meaning only acoustic devices would be used to drive seals away from nets.
The protest group, Sea Shepherd, expressed "delight" at the news.
Police Scotland said it was monitoring the situation.
April 21 2014 As predicted by Sea Shepherd on Good Friday, the killing team of the Scottish Wild Salmon Company escalated tensions in the Scottish seal killing grounds with an unprecedented attack on a member of Sea Shepherd U
April 21 2014 As predicted by Sea Shepherd on Good Friday, the killing team of the Scottish Wild Salmon Company escalated tensions in the Scottish seal killing grounds with an unprecedented attack on a member of Sea Shepherd UK’s campaign crew.
As residents of Gardenstown were preparing for breakfast on Easter Monday, Sea Shepherd crewmembers were already being threatened with violence by the Scottish Wild Salmon Company’s seal killers.
In a dramatic 8 a.m. confrontation which took place away from the Harbour in the town’s New Ground, three employees of the Scottish Wild Salmon Company, one carrying a rifle, cornered just one of our crewmembers, leaving him fearful of extreme violence.
The crewmember had the presence of mind to keep his camera running throughout, and the situation was saved when other members of the Sea Shepherd campaign crew arrived with their own cameras. Realizing that any further illegal acts on their part were being recorded, the thugs backed away and returned to their command base.
Sea Shepherd UK has now reported the situation and shown video footage to Police Scotland. Sea Shepherd UK is confident that charges can now be brought against the ringleader of the Scottish Wild Salmon Company’s out-of-control thugs.
Given the escalating situation, Sea Shepherd UK has now asked the Hunt Saboteurs Association to reactivate their undercover teams as well as introduce new covert operatives to the area. Other Sea Shepherd volunteers and specialist intervention teams are also now heading to Banffshire in order to defend Scottish seals from these violent people.
The Scottish government issues companies such as the Scottish Wild Salmon Company with licenses to shoot seals, which they claim threaten fish stocks. However the legislation requires that seals may only ever be shot as a last resort after all other methods of control have been applied. The actions of these companies themselves are drawing seals to the salmon. Seals in this area do not normally eat salmon, but when salmon netting companies trap wild fish in large numbers, it is only natural that the captured fish attract seals. As we’ve seen with the sea lions on the Columbia River on the Oregon/Washington border here in the U.S., these animals are being targeted for the simple “crime” of eating fish.
The non-lethal solution is to deploy Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs), which the Scottish Wild Salmon Company does have available to them. Unfortunately, lethal bullets are cheaper than the non-lethal alternative, and so, without effective policing by Marine Scotland (the agency responsible for the seal killing licenses), it is left to Sea Shepherd to once again uphold national and international laws which governments neither can’t nor won’t enforce.
18th April Members of the HSA have just returned from Scotland where they have been involved in
18th April Members of the HSA have just returned from Scotland where they have been involved in stopping the shooting of seals by fishing companies. They have been busy mapping the location of Salmon nets used by the Scottish Wild Salmon Company in, and around, Gamrie Bay, Aberdeenshire. Since arriving in the area hunt saboteurs have ranged across the territory on foot locating seal kill zones from beaches, hillsides and treacherous cliff-top locations often in extreme weather conditions. This vital information will enable Sea Shepherd to intervene between marksmen and the seals.
April 17, 2014 from corporate watch Today Debbie Vincent, an animal
April 17, 2014 from corporate watch Today Debbie Vincent, an animal rights activist from the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign was sentenced to six years in prison for conspiracy to blackmail after a five week long trial at Winchester Crown Court. She was also given an Anti Social Behaviour Order which means she can be arrested if she protests against or contacts Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) or its business partners for a further five years after her release from prison. The sentence should serve as a wake up call to anti-capitalists of the need to offer solidarity to those who have been singled out for repression because of their involvement in effective resistance to corporate power. A press release from the Blackmail 3 support campaign quotes Debbie: “I have been made an example of because I put myself up as a public face of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and for believing that such places as Huntingdon Life Sciences should be resigned to the history books.” “In some ways I’m really not surprised I was found guilty, as I don’t believe anyone can get justice when faced with a political conspiracy charge and the huge resources of the state and multinationals against me. I will always have hope and will always continue to try my best to make the inhabitants of this planet more compassionate to all and try to make the world a better place for all.” What we are seeing is a coordinated campaign against animal rights activists in an effort to silence dissent,” said Adrian Shaw of the Blackmail 3 Support Campaign. “This is the third conspiracy to blackmail trial in the UK involving people accused of campaigning against Huntingdon Life Sciences.” Corporate Watch spoke to Debbie prior to the sentencing. She said: “What is scary in this world is oppression and injustice, when people hurt people, animals and nature. What is beautiful in this world is resistance, when people say 'enough is enough' and act. Oppression and injustice are everywhere, but so is resistance. Because some people know that if you fight you might lose, but if you don't fight, you've already lost.” The campaign SHAC was set up in 1999 with the aim of closing down Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). HLS is one of the largest contract testing companies in the world. They keep about 70,000 animals on site at their lab in Huntingdon. According to SHAC, “HLS will test anything for anybody. They carry out experiments which involve poisoning animals with household products, pesticides, drugs, herbicides, food colourings and additives, sweeteners and genetically modified organisms. Every three minutes an animal dies inside Huntingdon totalling 500 innocent lives every single day.” SHAC's tactics have been groundbreaking for direct action campaigns in their targeting of the network of companies with business relationships with HLS: from its customers to its service providers and from its suppliers to its investors. To read an analysis of the SHAC model of campaignining click here. Over the years SHAC has published details of the companies doing business with HLS on its website and has encouraged people to persuade these companies to cease their business with HLS. The SHAC website is clear that it is not encouraging people to break the law. SHAC contacts the companies and tells them that they will remain listed on its website until they cease doing business with HLS. Hundreds of companies have ceased trading with HLS. View a list here. HLS have been infiltrated and their practices exposed several times. To read undercover exposes of animal abuse at HLS click here. The arrests of the 'Blackmail 3' In June 2012 European arrest warrants were issued in the UK for two activists in Holland, who will be referred to as SH and NS in this article. On 6th July 2012 Debbie Vincent, who had been targeted by the police for many years for her involvement in the SHAC campaign, was arrested and detained on suspicion of conspiracy to blackmail. Her home address was searched. On the same day SH and NS were arrested and premises in Amsterdam were searched. Debbie was charged in July 2012 with conspiracy to blackmail, an offence under the 1977 Criminal Law Act. The British police have sought the extradition of the Dutch activists and the Dutch courts granted it. However, until now there is an ongoing dispute over the extradition as the lawyers for one of the Dutch defendants have demanded an undertaking from the British Secretary of State that he would serve his sentence in Holland if he was convicted. The charge placed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) against Debbie was conspiring with 16 named people, including the two Dutch activists, and unnamed others “to blackmail representatives of companies and businesses and other persons” “by making unwarranted demands, namely to cease lawful trading with HLS, with menaces and with intent to cause loss to another.” The 13 other 'co-conspirators' have already been jailed for conspiracy to blackmail, at trials in 2009 and 2010 for a total of almost 70 years between them. For many of them the only evidence presented was involvement in lawful campaigning against the company and association with those involved in direct action. The use of the charge of blackmail against Debbie is another example of the twisting of the law to repress grassroots dissent against powerful corporations. Blackmail? The events relied on in Debbie's case were that in 2008 and 2009 actions were carried out in France, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland against Novartis, EuroNext, Schering Plough, BDO, AstraZeneca, Fortress and Nomura, all companies with business relationships with HLS. The actions included setting fire to directors' cars, company buildings and, in one case, the holiday hunting lodge of Daniel Vasella, Director of Novartis. Graffiti was daubed on directors' homes overnight and the ashes of Vasella's mother were stolen from the family tomb. However, in the words of Michael Bowes QC, the prosecutor in the case: “There is no evidence that Ms Vincent was present at the scene of any of the attacks, or incidents in Europe. There is no evidence that she was outside of the United Kingdom at the time of any of these attacks”. Instead the Crown Prosecution 'Service' (CPS) claimed that Debbie was guilty of involvement in a 'conspiracy to blackmail' involving those actions. The CPS claimed that there was evidence linking SH and NS to some of these actions. However they were not the ones in the dock. The prosecution argued that Debbie had been in phone contact with SH and NS and had attended the 2009 Animal Rights gathering in Oslo that they also attended. But the case went much further than that. The CPS argued that the SHAC campaign itself, in publishing details of companies on their website and encouraging people to protest against them, was guilty of blackmail. The effects of this legal 'logic' have broad implications for anti-corporate activists. For example, during the movement against apartheid in South Africa activists published details of companies like Barclays Bank and encouraged people to protest against them until they pulled out of South Africa. Was this an act of blackmail? Do campaign groups who publish the names and addresses of companies involved in fracking and encourage people to protest against them run the risk of convictions for blackmail? Is activist security a crime? The CPS's case summary says that “Debbie Vincent has taken steps to conceal her criminality by the use of encrypted computers (she has failed to provide the encryption codes despite being known to have been using a totally encrypted computer shortly before it was seized). Encrypted storage media was found hidden behind the kickboard of kitchen units at her address”. In highlighting this, the prosecutors were implying to the jury that Debbie had something to hide. The implication that the taking of lawful steps to protect privacy in the context of a concerted police campaign to monitor, criminalise, arrest and imprison activists seems laughable. However, it is a well rehearsed argument in animal rights cases. The set-up The prosecution had evidence that Debbie had contacted the directors of Novartis after the direct action against the company had taken place. However, they had no evidence linking Debbie to the direct action itself apart from the circumstantial links to NS and SH. In order to try and strengthen their case, the police worked with Novartis to try to entrap Debbie and another SHAC activist (who was also arrested but had his charges dropped, he will be referred to in this article as 'X') into admitting links to the robbing of the Vasella grave. SHAC had emailed Novartis, requesting that they cease dealing with HLS. Andrew Jackson, Global Head of Corporate Security at Novartis, replied and requested a meeting with the campaign. Jackson said that this meeting would be to discuss the issues raised in the email from the campaign. Debbie and the other activist arranged to meet representatives of Novartis at the Le Meridien Hotel in Piccadilly on 10th March 2010. Unknown to them, the company had arranged with the police to bug the meeting, and one of the people they were due to meet was an undercover officer, using the alias 'James Adams', who was masquerading as a Special Contracts Manager for Novartis. The activists were swept for bugs at the beginning of the meeting and each time they went to the toilet. They were told that the meetings were strictly confidential. After the meeting Adams got in touch with SHAC again and said that “certain things are outside the parameters of the dialogue” and asked Debbie and 'X' to set up another meeting, encouraging them to communicate with him via PGP email encryption. 'Adams' was eager to communicate directly with Debbie and 'X' rather than through the campaign. The clear intention was to coax the activists into offering to secure the return of the Vasella remains. Throughout the discussions in the meetings with Novartis, Debbie was clear that SHAC had no idea who took the remains and had no control over them. 'Adams', the undercover officer, took the lead during the conversations with Debbie. According to Debbie, he asked “leading questions about whether we were the right people” to talk to. Debbie's notes of the conversation record her as saying: “We're taking a risk the way the legal system is in this country to meet with you… [X] and I are painfully aware that going to these meeting with Novartis puts us in the spotlight, puts us at risk…" A representative of Novartis then says: "This is a confidential process…" In a later email to the company, Debbie said that she had spoken to some of the activists conducting demonstrations against Novartis and confirmed that they had agreed to stop protesting should Novartis end its contract with HLS. Soon after the second meeting with Novartis Debbie met 'James Adams' on the underground, as if by chance. In fact he had followed her onto the train. He tried to broach the issue of the Vasella remains again but Debbie refused to discuss the issue. Targeting of activists by political police units The arrest and prosecution of Debbie, and cases against animal rights activists more generally, are overseen by specialised political police units designed to protect corporations from public anger. In 1999 the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) was set up following the publication of a Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies report, which claimed that some protest groups “have adopted a strategic, long-term approach to their protests, employing new and innovative tactics to frustrate authorities and achieve their objectives”. The NPOIU has been responsible for planting undercover officers in protest movements. Debbie regards the use of undercover officers against her as a “sting operation”. She said she believed that Adams was “clearly part of National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit”, formerly the National Domestic Extremism Unit, “who are just a re-branding of the Special Demonstration Squad and National Public Order Intelligence Unit” and that “there is now a 25 year history of unaccountable practice by a secretive and unaccountable police unit”. Specialised political police units aim to criminalise and imprison activists and neutralise political movements that pose a challenge to corporate power or other aspects of the current system. 'Decapitating' the 'leaders' The strategy of the police units involved in overseeing Debbie's case is explored in the January 2013 edition of the European Journal of Criminology. It includes an article by John Donovan and Richard Timothy Coupe. Donovan is employed by the Metropolitan Police 'Service'. The article encapsulates the police and CPS's approach to the SHAC campaign as one of “leadership decapitation”: “Police agencies combating terrorist or organised crime groups principally employ intelligence-led activities (Innes et al., 2005) and covert investigative techniques for identifying group participants and linking them to criminal activities. These involve human surveillance, informants and under-cover officers, as well as covert, electronic techniques, including wire-tapping, to monitor incriminating communications and understand member roles and ties in criminal networks, such as the Neapolitan Camorra (Campana, 2011; Campana and Varese, 2012). As well as the arrest of members of terrorist groups who commit or plan crimes, leaders and upper echelons have been specifically targeted in order to ‘decapitate’ and weaken or terminate groups (Cronin, 2009; David, 2002; Jordan, 2009; Price, 2012), an approach still emphasised in counter-insurgency doctrine (Hauenstein, 2011). This was the approach adopted by UK police in seeking to disrupt and terminate SHAC’s campaign of intimidation.” The CPS's case summary claimed that Debbie was the representative of SHAC in the UK. Alistair Nisbet, the Senior Crown Prosecutor in the case, said: “Following the conviction of SHAC’s main leaders in 2008, Debbie Vincent’s role within the organisation grew. She became the public face of SHAC”. Of course, the police's notions of leaders within the SHAC campaign betray a fundamental lack of understanding of horizontal organising by protest movements. Nevertheless, this tactic of painting individuals as leaders and targeting them is the strategy behind the police efforts to railroad Debbie and other activists to prison; an organised attempt by the police to neutralise a political protest movement through the twisting of the law to imprison those who the authorities label as 'leaders'. Media greenscare So why aren't more people rallying to support Debbie and other SHAC campaigners? One reason is the police's attempts to discredit the movement in the media and thus to limit public solidarity for those under their cosh. In the past, mainstream media scare-stories about animal rights and environmental campaigners have been found to have been fabricated by political police units – see here. During Debbie's case the media coverage was deeply offensive, defamatory and discriminatory, focusing on the fact that Debbie had undergone gender reassignment. The Mirror's headline was “The boy who grew up to become a woman of terror” while the Daily Mail ran with “Sex-change soldier who became an animal rights terror commander” and made the unsubstantiated claim that Debbie had “been attacking animal testing labs for over ten years”. Debbie has already made a successful claim to the Press Complaints Commission and forced the Mail to amend an article which erroneously linked her to the Animal Liberation Front and linked SHAC to a previous blackmail case against the Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs campaign. This defamation in the press is undoubtedly stirred up by police press releases, aimed at generating a negative image of animal rights campaigners in the media in order to limit public support for the movement. It is of utmost importance that anti-corporate campaigners are not taken in by this spin, which is designed to protect corporate profits, and to stand in solidarity with those experiencing repression. Protecting corporations from dissent Pharmaceutical companies that are facing public anger over their activities have seized on Debbie's conviction to further restrict protest outside their premises. After the verdict in the trial, Novartis applied for a strengthened injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act (PHA) of 1997 against animal rights protesters. It was granted on 14 April 2014. The harsh terms of the injunction were requested, by notorious corporate lawyer Timothy Lawson Cruttenden, on the grounds that there could be a “backlash that occurs after the sentence”. The PHA Act was drafted and made its way through parliament as a provision designed to protect vulnerable people from harassment. Before the law was passed, the media had been evoking emotional accounts of the effect of stalking and the need to protect vulnerable individuals. The Act was never portrayed as a law designed to protect corporations and restrict protest. Yet, that's exactly what its being used for. The new conditions put in place by Novartis are an interim measure and will be examined at another court hearing. The interim injunction has been made against 'persons unknown' but potentially affects anyone demonstrating against Novartis. It restricts demonstrations to six people or fewer, in designated protest zones, with no amplified sounds, and forbids face-coverings or blood-splattered costumes. Anyone deemed to have breached the conditions can be arrested and may face up to five years in prison. However, last year a test case at the Old Bailey of two SHAC activists put into question the practicality of prosecuting activists arrested under PHA injunctions. See this Corporate Watch article for details of the case. Solidarity needed Debbie's conviction is part of an ongoing campaign of repression against the UK animal rights movement. A further seven SHAC activists have been charged with 'conspiracy to interfere with the contractual relations so as to harm an animal research organisation' under Section 145 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005). The charges relate to demonstrations against companies with business relationships with HLS. They are due to appear in court later this year. For more information on the ongoing repression of UK animal rights activists see the website: www.stopukrepression.org When we asked Debbie if she would need any particular support from people if she got a custodial sentence, she replied: “Practically, I'm not sure what my needs will be in prison, it will depend to a degree to where I go. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to cope, but being isolated from nature and friends will be the worst part. I will try to make the best of the bad situation, it's all a bit daunting and new. The whole charge and court case are still amazingly surreal.” “Keep on campaigning against all oppression and capitalist domination. Don't be afraid to speak out and never apologise for trying to make a difference and caring.” To see a list of imprisoned animal rights activists worldwide click here. Update: We have just heard that Debbie has been taken to Bronzefield Prison. Her prisoner number should be available soon.
April 15, 2014 At least 908 people were murdered for taking a stand to defend the environment betwe
April 15, 2014 At least 908 people were murdered for taking a stand to defend the environment between 2002 and 2013, according to a new report today from Global Witness, which shows a dramatic uptick in the murder rate during the past four years. Notably, the report appears on the same day that another NGO, Survival International, released a video of a gunman terrorizing a Guarani indigenous community in Brazil, which has recently resettled on land taken from them by ranchers decades ago. According to the report, nearly half of the murders over the last decade occurred in Brazil—448 in all—and over two-thirds—661—involved land conflict.
"There can be few starker or more obvious symptoms of the global environmental crisis than a dramatic upturn in killings of ordinary people defending rights to their land or environment," said Oliver Courtney of Global Witness. "Yet this rapidly worsening problem is going largely unnoticed, and those responsible almost always get away with it. We hope our findings will act as the wake-up call that national governments and the international community clearly need."
But as grisly as the report is, it's likely a major underestimation of the issue. The report covers just 35 countries where violence against environmental activists remains an issue, but leaves out a number of major countries where environmental-related murders are likely occurring but with scant reporting.
"Because of the live, under-recognized nature of this problem, an exhaustive global analysis of the situation is not possible," reads the report. "For example, African countries such as Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Zimbabwe that are enduring resource-fueled unrest are highly likely to be affected, but information is almost impossible to gain without detailed field investigations."
In fact, reports of hundreds of additional killings in countries like Ethiopia, Myanmar, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe were left out due to lack of rigorous information.
Even without these countries included, the number of environmental activists killed nearly approaches the number of journalists murdered during the same period—913—an issue that gets much more press. Environmental activists most at risk are people fighting specific industries.
"Many of those facing threats are ordinary people opposing land grabs, mining operations and the industrial timber trade, often forced from their homes and severely threatened by environmental devastation," reads the report. "Indigenous communities are particularly hard hit. In many cases, their land rights are not recognized by law or in practice, leaving them open to exploitation by powerful economic interests who brand them as 'anti-development'."
As if to highlight these points, Survival International released a video today that the groups says shows a gunman firing at the Pyelito Kuê community of Guarani indigenous people. The incident injured one woman, according to the group. The Guarani have been campaigning for decades to have land returned to them that has been taken by ranchers.
"This video gives a brief glimpse of what the Guarani endure month after month—harassment, intimidation, and sometimes murder, just for trying to live in peace on tiny fractions of the ancestral land that was once stolen from them," the director of Survival International, Stephen Corry, said. "Is it too much to expect the Brazilian authorities, given the billions they're spending on the World Cup, to sort this problem out once and for all, rather than let the Indians' misery continue?"
According to the report, two major drivers of repeated violence against environmental activists are a lack of attention to the issue and widespread impunity for perpetrators. In fact, Global Witness found that only ten people have been convicted for the 908 murders documented in the report, meaning a conviction rate of just 1.1 percent to date.
"Environmental human rights defenders work to ensure that we live in an environment that enables us to enjoy our basic rights, including rights to life and health," John Knox, UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and the Environment said. "The international community must do more to protect them from the violence and harassment they face as a result."
An animal rights activist has been convicted of conspiracy to blackmail after 5 weeks on trial at Winchester Crown Court.
An animal rights activist has been convicted of conspiracy to blackmail after 5 weeks on trial at Winchester Crown Court. Debbie Vincent of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign was accused of blackmail on the basis that SHAC pressured companies to end their business relationships with Huntingdon Life Sciences, Europe's largest animal testing laboratory. The case is the latest development in the use of blackmail laws against animal rights activists. In 2010 seven SHAC campaigners were handed sentences of up to 16 years in prison for 'conspiring' to blackmail companies not to do business with HLS. Debbie was accused of being part of the same ten year 'conspiracy' as the previous defendants, from 2001-11, despite the fact that there was only evidence that she had been involved in the campaign from 2005. Police had bugged a house used by SHAC campaigners for an eight month period in 2005 and put those going in and out under surveillance. Much of the case against Debbie was on the grounds of guilt by association with the defendants convicted in 2010 and with unnamed people. The twisting of blackmail laws in this way has broad ramifications for the right to express dissent in the UK. The law is being used to intimidate people who are attempting to resist against corporate power. The logical extension of the use of the law in this way is that any campaigner who pressures a company to end its practices could be targeted. The prosecution argued that SHAC had posted details of companies on their website and encouraged people to protest against them. The CPS claimed that this amounted to blackmail, despite the fact that the SHAC campaign stipulated on its website that protests should be lawful. In the second week of the trial, after the defence demanded that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) give full disclosure of the papers at their disposal to the defence, it was revealed that an undercover police officer, using the alias 'James Adams' had masqueraded as an executive for Novartis and met with Debbie and another activist from the SHAC campaign to discuss Novartis' dealings with HLS. It seems that the police and Novartis were trying, unsuccessfully, to link the two activists to illegal direct action. Several officers from the National Domestic Extremism Unit gave evidence at the trial. The NDEU is a specialist police unit which aims to target activists involved in direct action campaigning. For more information on the UK's political police units click here.
Debbie is due in court for sentencing on April 17th. The CPS have indicated they intend to apply for an Anti Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) to come into effect on her release which will restrict her movements. In 2010 indefinite ASBOs were granted against four convicted activists banning them from ever protesting against animal experimentation. The case is part of an ongoing campaign of police repression against the SHAC campaign. Seven SHAC activists have been charged with 'conspiracy to interfere with the contractual relations so as to harm an animal research organisation' under Section 144 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005). The charges relate to demonstrations against companies with business relationships with HLS. They are due to appear in court later this year A Stop UK Repression campaign has been set up to support animal rights activists bearing the brunt of this latest state crackdown on anti-corporate dissent. The campaign's website reads “In an atmosphere of increasing repression against activists and the criminalisation of effective campaigns, it is important that we show our solidarity for those involved and form a strong network to support the UK animal rights movement." More details at: www.shac.net
www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2014/03/515954.html
www.stopukrepression.org/?page_id=75#
Resisting Together is an event of many ideas focussed on a single aim – the dissolution of Industrial Civilization through acts of resistance.
Resisting Together is an event of many ideas focussed on a single aim – the dissolution of Industrial Civilization through acts of resistance. There are many activists – community, political, radical individuals, groups and movements – operating both in the open and underground; we don’t agree on everything, but at our core we all seek to free humanity from the yoke of the industrial machine, the horror-play that the civilized world acts out every day, degrading the natural world and enslaving people in the pursuit of material wealth and power.
Date: Saturday 29th March, 2014
Time: 1pm-7pm
Cost: by donation at the event
Venue: The Canons’ Gait, 232 Canongait (Royal Mile), Edinburgh, EH8 8DQ
A mixture of talks and discussions, the launch of the book, "Underminers" and probably a bit of music too, Resisting Together will be a chance to share, exhort, emote and learn from others how we can move towards a world where we are in control of our destiny, unfettered by the shackles of the industrial machine. This unique event seeks to bridge gaps and find commonality between the various strands of radical thought and action that are seeking to protect the future from ecocide. The range of topics, groups and ideas represented is deliberately broad, and there will be ample opportunity for you to add your own thoughts to the mix. We need it all.
If you wish to come, please REGISTER via the website: www.underminers.org/resisting-together
The state-sponsored crackdown on animal rights activists continues next month, with the opening of the third ‘conspiracy to blackmail’ trial relating to vivisection giants Huntingdon Life Sciences in Winchester…
