Peaceful protesters are facing extreme and multiple punishments for the same offence: the offence of trying to defend Earth systems.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 19th April 2024

When the traditional ruling class was obliged to concede to demands for democracy, it gave away as little as possible. We could vote, but it ensured that crucial elements of the old system remained in place: the House of Lords, the first-past-the-post electoral system, prerogative powers and Henry VIII clauses, and above all a legal system massively and blatantly biased towards owners of property.

In combination, these elements ensured that the system remained predisposed to elite rule, even while it pretended the people were in charge. The portcullis excluding us from power has never been properly lifted since the Norman conquest. The relationship between rulers and ruled remains, in effect, a relationship between occupier and occupied.

For almost a thousand years, we’ve celebrated those who resisted in folklore and fantasy: the Robin Hood myth commemorates Eadric the Wild and other “silvatici” who held out in the woods, launching raids against the occupiers. But in the real world, few dare to raise their heads. The hatred, disgust and fear with which elite power has long regarded the people is reciprocated with fear and deference: we know what happens when we step out of line.

If this were a real democracy, it would have evolved. Preposterous rules and rituals would have been retired. Representation would have been tempered with participatory, deliberative decision-making. Instead, across the 157 years since some working-class men were first allowed to vote, the system has stagnated by design. We are still asked to apply industrial-strength credulity in accepting that our “representatives” have our best interests at heart, and will defend us faithfully for five years at a time.

But the ruling classes granted one small concession: the right to protest against the decisions they make. Since the Peterloo massacre in 1819, they knew the system had to bend if it were not to break, and upheld “the undoubted right of Englishmen to assemble together”. Nonviolent protest has long been recognised as a legitimate means of challenging and improving our political settlement. Were it not for protest, the franchise would never have been extended in the first place, and the thing we call democracy would not exist.

But as an economic elite has reasserted power, protest has become ever less tolerable. Far from being seen as an essential political modifier, it has increasingly been treated as a threat to be stamped out.

Protesting against the failure of the political class to protect us from harm, especially from the existential harm of environmental breakdown, is both rational and, in the current climate, heroic. Those who do so take on a burden of legal jeopardy on behalf of the rest of us, a burden that becomes heavier with every year, as the state throws not just new criminal measures but also new civil measures at those who dare dissent. Environmental protesters are the modern silvatici, sometimes living in the greenwood, contesting oppressive power on our behalf.

The most extreme case so far – indeed the longest sentences for peaceful protest handed out in British history – was the prosecution of two climate protesters called Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker. In October 2022, they climbed on to the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, which crosses the Thames at Dartford, and unveiled a banner. They received, respectively, sentences of three years, and two years and seven months.

Marcus Decker, a professional musician and teacher, told me he had tried all the “respectable” tactics: “using music to raise awareness, petitions, writing to my representatives”, before accepting that politics as usual was not going to deliver. From his childhood in East Germany, and his research into earlier movements, he saw how civil disobedience could change an oppressive system.

They planned the action carefully, to minimise disruption (starting very early in the morning so traffic could easily be diverted into the Dartford tunnel, as it is routinely when the bridge is closed due to bad weather) and maximise media coverage of their call for an end to the licensing of new oil and gas extraction. They stayed on the bridge for 37 hours, before agreeing to be brought down.

Their prison terms were massively out of line with any sentencing that had gone before. Marcus was released this February, after 16 months: longer than anyone has served for peaceful protest since all adults had the vote.

You might have thought that was enough – many times more than enough – for peaceful civil disobedience. But no. Marcus is a German citizen with pre-settled status in the UK, where he lives with his family: his partner, Holly Cullen-Davies, and his two stepchildren. Any non-citizen who has been sentenced to at least 12 months in prison is, unless they successfully appeal, automatically deported to their country of origin. According to the immigration charity Settled, this appears to be “the first time in the UK that the power of deportation has been used after a criminal conviction flowing from a protest.”

Holly, a concert pianist and choir leader, cannot move to Germany: her children need to be close to their dad, and she’s committed to looking after her parents. I met them for the first time last week, and I’ve seldom come across such a devoted couple. But unless Marcus can successfully appeal, their right to family life will be cruelly snatched away. Holly told me: “It’s impossibly sad to face the possibility that we’ll be separated for life. It feels like an intolerable punishment for the whole family.”

This is just one example of the vindictiveness of a flailing political class seeking to snuff out democratic challenge. Climate campaigners have recently been deprived of their right to explain their motives to a jury, so now they are tried as if they were mindless vandals. Those who have sought to explain nonetheless have been imprisoned for contempt of court. The 69-year-old Trudi Warner is being prosecuted at the government’s behest for holding a placard stating an accepted fact of British law: that juries have a right to act according to their conscience. For the first time in living memory, a campaigner has been imprisoned (for six months) for merely marching down a street. Before our eyes, the law and its application are being radically shifted even further towards the interests of property owners: in this case, oil and gas companies.

The home secretary could cancel Marcus’s deportation with one stroke. So far, 157,000 people have signed a petition urging him to do so. As injustice is piled upon injustice, a great cruelty is being done. We need our Robin Hoods.

www.monbiot.com

Page now gives 404 result after overwhelming evidence challenging claims emerged

As Skwawkbox reported earlier today, ‘Campaign against Antisemitism’ (CAA) chief executive Gideon Falter’s claim that he had been prevented by police from crossing a road after just happening to ‘come across’ a pro-Palestine march looks to have fallen apart after a huge volume of eyewitness, photographic and video evidence emerged challenging the veracity of the claim.

Falter, whose CAA group has been shown to have taken large amounts of funding from a ‘quasi-governmental’ Israeli organisation and featured prominently in the campaign to take down then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, has also been shown to have made false claims of antisemitic speech – leading to the prosecution, conviction and unanimous acquittal on appeal of a Foreign Office official. His claim about Saturday’s events fuelled calls for the banning of pro-Palestinian marches and the removal of Met Police Commissioner Mark Rowley – who just happens to have previously refused the demands of right-wing, pro-Israel campaigners and politicians for the marches to be banned.

And now Sky News, which had run hard with the false claims and the ensuing narrative, has deleted its video of Falter’s staged stunt. Footage and photographs shot by bystanders strongly suggest that Falter was at the site of the march for some time before the incident – and that he was there with bodyguards and had already tried to disrupt it, a stark contrast with his narrative that he had just bumped into the march on his way home from synagogue.

While emails containing the link will still show a preview of the original content, clicking through to the link leads to a ‘404’ ‘page not found result, as the combined screenshots below show:

It will be interesting to see whether the rest of the so-called ‘mainstream’ media follow suit, or leave up the misleading video and claims despite the flood of contrary evidence.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

A retired social worker will not face prison for allegations of ‘contempt of court’, after holding up a sign outside a climate trial last year which stated: “Jurors: you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience”.

The Government’s Solicitor General had applied to ‘commit’ climate activist Trudi Warner to prison, with initial hearings at the Royal Courts of Justice taking place last Thursday and today (Monday 22nd April). She faced up to two years in prison if the case went ahead.  

The Defend Our Juries campaign, which aims to inform jurors of their right to acquit peaceful activists and defend those who do so, said a “vital precedent” has been established protecting protest rights outside courts. 

A judge at the High Court this morning said Warner would not face a full hearing and refused the Government's attempt to try her for contempt of court, which could have meant two years in jail. The Government had claimed that Warner’s actions sought to illegally sway the jury during the climate protest trial.  

The year-long battle follows an incident in March last year, when 69-year-old Warner held up a placard reminding jurors they had a right to give a verdict based on their conscience - a message that features on an historic plaque at the Old Bailey.

Delivering his judgement on the Government's application on Monday, Mr Justice Saini said: "The Solicitor General’s case does not disclose a reasonable basis for committal … It is fanciful to suggest that Ms Warner’s conduct [amounted to common law contempt]. Her placard simply summarised the principle of jury equity. Her conduct was consistent with information sharing. She was in essence a human billboard.”

Warner held her sign up outside a courtroom where people were on trial for protesting against the Government’s failure to tackle the climate crisis. London Court Judge Silas Reid had ruled that the defendants were not allowed to tell the jury why they were protesting and had banned them from mentioning the words “climate change” and “fuel poverty”. Three people have now gone to prison after defying his order, Defend Our Juries says. 

Responding to the news, Good Law Project legal manager, Jennine Walker, said:“We are delighted that Trudi’s nightmare is over and she can get on with her life free from the fear of being imprisoned.

“Juries hold a special place in our legal system because they allow ordinary people to decide what is right and fair. When the state wants to exercise the greatest power it has - that of sending someone to prison - a jury can keep it in check. Trudi’s sign simply reminded jurors of that important right.

“Let's not forget why Trudi held up her sign. The UK Government is not doing enough to prevent the damage caused by global heating that is destroying people's homes and livelihoods. The law is not doing enough to hold the people and companies who are destroying our planet to account. Yet ordinary people who sound the alarm face prosecution.”

Before the hearing, a Defend our Juries spokesperson said the fact that Warner faced prison at all “should be enough to send a shudder down your spine.” 

Warner’s cause has been taken up by hundreds of other activists, who have joined protests outside courtrooms across the country since she was arrested last year - many of them urging the police to arrest them. 

The Background

Following Judge Reid’s orders, Trudi Warner protested outside the Inner London Crown Court with a placard, outlining what she said was principle of ‘jury equity’, in other words the right of a jury to acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience, even if a judge directs that there is no defence. 

Trudi Warner was subsequently arrested for contempt of court. On 18 April, at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Solicitor General, Robert Courts MP, will apply for permission to commit Ms Warner to prison for her actions (known as ‘committal proceedings’). Ms Warner will be represented by Clare Montgomery KC.

From the 13th-21st April, hundreds of people gathered outside every Crown Court in England and Wales to mimic her actions and dare police to arrest them. 

In February, 300 people handed in a letter inviting the Solicitor General to prosecute them too. 

A spokesperson for the Defend Our Juries Campaign added last week: “This week, our message to the Government and courts is simple: Trudi Warner is not alone in asserting a fundamental principle of justice, if you are prosecuting Trudi Warner, you must prosecute us too.”

On Friday 12th April, Warner addressed a conference organised by Lawyers Are Responsible and Queen Mary University of London, attended by lawyers, academics, health workers and frontline climate activists. 

Michel Forst, the UN Special Rapporteur for environmental defenders, delivered a video address, telling attendees: “In January 2024, I was in London for a couple of days to meet with environmental defenders and Government representatives…

“I had received many concerning reports of the crackdown on environmental defenders in [other] countries. But I must say, I had not seen a situation as concerning as the one in the UK. Since [my last visit], the situation does not seem to have improved.” 

That assessment may now be slightly tempered by today’s news. 

A Defend Our Juries protest inside the Royal Courts of Justice, February 2024

The Defend Our Juries campaign aims “to bring to public attention the programme to undermine trial by jury in the context of those taking action to expose Government dishonesty and corporate greed.”

The group also seeks to highlight the "vital constitutional safeguard" that juries can acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience, "irrespective of a judge’s direction that there is no available defence," a principle also known as ‘jury equity’ or ‘jury nullification‘.  

And the organisers push to ensure all defendants are able to explain their actions "when their liberty is at stake, including by explaining their motivations and beliefs.” 

Last August, 40 members of the public, including an Olympic gold medalist, a retired bus driver, a number of health professionals, a group of Quakers and a former government lawyer - who have all held up similar signs - wrote to the Solicitor General to say, “If you prosecute Trudi Warner, you should prosecute us too.”

A spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office told Byline Times last September: “Contempt of court is a serious matter and the power to issue proceedings is used sparingly. When investigating potential contempt issues, the Law Officers assess whether the evidential test for the specific form of contempt is met.

"In this case, the Law Officers considered the deliberate act of doing something that interferes or creates a real risk of interference with the administration of justice, and whether it is in the public interest to begin proceedings for contempt...It will now be a matter for the Court.”

Contempt of court is not technically a criminal offence, but it is punishable by imprisonment.

Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com

Madeleine King, Minister for Resources in the Albanese government recently announced that she will curtail the ability of Australians to challenge resource corporation projects in court (The West Australian 26/3/24). She has several possible motivations which just might include the prospect of a lucrative post-politics career. This attack on democratic rights is built on decades…

The post Fossil Fuel’s war on protest appeared first on The AIM Network.