A freeB.E.A.G.L.E.S. briefing. For more info contact info@....

The government has recently tabled two amendments to the Serious Organised Crime
Bill currently going through Parliament and due to become law by May 2005. These
are breathtaking assaults on civil liberties. The laws have been presented to
the public - via a compliant media - as necessary to prevent animal rights
extremism. They go much further than this, however, and criminalise ordinary
protest activity such as consumer boycotts or even handing out leaflets to the
public.

The government tactics are a classic example of divide and rule. They are
demonizing one section of the protest movement - animal rights activists - in
order to bring in laws which amount to a denial of the most basic human rights.
This is not just an animal rights issue - it is an issue for everyone concerned
about their human rights. Rarely have the words of Pastor Niemoller been so true
- first they came for the Muslims, now they are coming animal rights people, but
it will not stop there.

Anyone serious about the exercise of basic civil liberties ought to be concerned
about these new laws. Their effect is to turn minor public order offences, as
well as many acts which are not even against the law, into serious criminal
offences, if they are carried out as part of a protest against animal research.
In short the government is seeking to criminalise virtually all forms of
effective protest against vivisection.

As they are currently worded, the new laws focus on 'protecting' animal research
institutions and do not apply to other protest groups. However, this is a
slippery slope and opens a door that should be kept firmly shut for everyone's
sake. Just as the Terrorism Act is being used against groups other than was
originally intended, so these amendments will undoubtedly be broadened in the
future to provide "protection" for other industries. The amendments include a
section allowing the laws to be widened so as to include other campaign groups
by Order of the Secretary of State - i.e. without the need for this to go
through the normal Parliamentary process...

Since coming to power, the Labour government has been steadily criminalising
protest. Now more than ever, we need to stand up and start resisting. To put it
in context, many will have heard the great news that the "McLibel Two" won their
case in the European Courts. Under the proposed new laws an animal research
organisation would not have to go to the libel courts to stop someone handing
out leaflets - they would just have them arrested, nullifying the achievements
for free speech achieved by McLibel. Even drawing attention to issues would
potentially be criminalised.

Below we give a more detailed discussion of the proposed amendments and their
implications. However, even if you do not read it, you can still take action.
The government is seeking to get this through by creating an 'animal rights'
bogeyman. We need to change the focus of the debate to what this really is, an
attack on fundamental human rights and an issue for everyone.

What you can do
1. Get out and protest - think of an action which will highlight these issues,
and get busy.
2. Write to your MP and demand they act to protect your civil liberties. Make a
point of visiting them in their surgeries and demand that they stand up and
fight for your liberties.
3. Contact your local newspapers and highlight this threat. These issues really
do need the oxygen of publicity in every forum possible.
4. Contact organisations such as Liberty, Amnesty and encourage them to act on
their mandate to fight for our basic human rights, and not be blinded by the
divide and rule tactics of the government.

Feel free to distribute this briefing to relevant parties; why not show the
following in-depth look at the implications to MPs and so on.

An in-depth look at the amendments
Both amendments are aimed at protecting animal research organisations and
criminalising protest activity by animal rights campaigners. The first is
defined as "Interference with contractual relationships so as to harm an animal
research organisation". The second is defined as "Intimidation of persons
connected with animal research organisation".

The most controversial aspect of the new laws is that they criminalise "torts".
A tort can best be defined as anything which gives rise to a cause of action in
the civil courts. The term "tortious conduct" means conduct contrary to civil
law. Most people will be familiar with some torts such as trespass and libel.
Others such as the torts of "nuisance" and "interference with a lawful contract"
will be less familiar.

Torts differ from crimes in that they are committed by individuals against other
individuals, whereas crimes are committed against the state. So when someone is
held liable for committing a tort, they cannot be imprisoned and Courts can only
order them to pay damages to the other party or to comply with an Order (for
example an Order not to trespass on land). You can only be sent to prison in
civil proceedings if you fail to comply with an order made by the court. The new
laws, however, will turn tortious actions themselves into criminal offences, if
they are carried out with the intention of causing loss or damage to an animal
research organisation.

The scale of this assault on civil liberties cannot be underestimated, given the
large number of "torts" which can be committed. For example a noisy
demonstration outside a company's premises could amount to the tort of "private
nuisance". Handing out an offensive leaflet could be held to be defamatory and
hence also a civil wrong, as could trespassing on someone's property. Consumer
boycotts are also caught by the terms of the new laws, as these could
potentially amount to the tort of "interference with a lawful contract". All of
these acts - which are not currently against the law - would become punishable
by up to 5 years' imprisonment if done with the intention of harming an animal
research organisation.

The new laws are probably not compatible with the European Convention on Human
Rights, which regards the freedoms of expression and of association as
particularly important. The High Court of England and Wales has held that the
right to freedom of expression includes the right to impart ideas which others
may find offensive or objectionable and this approach has been consistently
upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. The domestic and European Courts
have also consistently maintained that any interference by the state with the
rights to freedom of expression and assembly must be no greater than is
necessary to protect the rights of others. These principals have clearly not
been applied to the new laws, under which one could be sent to prison for up to
5 years for simply handing out a leaflet.

The rationale behind this is as follows. Many suppliers and customers of
Huntingdon Life Sciences have been successful in obtaining injunctions (Orders)
in the High Court. Similar Orders have been granted to Oxford University and to
a guinea pig breeding farm in Staffordshire which is the target of an animal
rights campaign. These Orders prevent people from carrying out acts which are
contrary to civil law - such as harassing another individual, speaking on a
megaphone (nuisance) and trespassing on private property. Breach of such an
Order is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment. Part of the government's
stated reason for bringing in the new laws is to extend this kind of protection
to all suppliers and customers of animal research organisations.

Over the past couple of years the government has been doing its utmost to
demonise animal rights protestors, and there is a reason behind this. Whenever
the government brings in controversial legislation attacking human rights, they
nearly always use a controversial group or "bogey man" to justify it. Once the
legislation becomes law, however, it is used as widely as possible.

With Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO), for example, the justification was
youths on housing estates. Now these Orders are being used against all and
sundry. With the proposed new internment powers the justification is Muslim
extremists - but the law is drafted widely enough to cover any UK citizen. The
new laws protecting animal research organisations are justified by the supposed
need to control animal rights extremists. Once they become law however, it can
only be a matter of time before they are extended to other protest groups as
well. The police are already complaining that the laws are not drafted widely
enough and should cover all areas of protest, and this government takes pride in
the fact that it has given the police all the powers they require. So protestors
who are not sympathetic to the tactics used by certain animal rights activists
have much to fear from this legislation, as their campaign could well be next.

The new laws are hardly democratic. There has been no public consultation at
all. MPs have been given about two hours in which to debate them in the House of
Commons and a similar amount of time or less will be allotted in the House of
Lords. The government is rushing the amendments through Parliament in order to
get them on to the statute books before the next general election in May thereby
appeasing its paymasters in the pharmaceutical industry.

The first of the new laws is defined as follows:
"Interference with contractual relationships so as to harm an animal research
organisation"
'(1) A person (A) commits an offence if, with the intention of harming an animal
research organisation, he-
(a) does a relevant act, or
(b) threatens that he or somebody else will do a relevant act,

in circumstances in which that act or threat is intended or likely to cause a
second person (B) to take any of the steps in subsection (2).

(2) The steps are-
(a) not to perform any contractual obligation owed by B to a third person (c)
(whether or not such non-performance amounts to a breach of contract);
(b) to terminate any contract B has with C;
(c) not to enter into a contract with C.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a "relevant act" is-
(a) an act amounting to a criminal offence, or
(b) a tortious act causing B to suffer loss or damage of any description.

(4) For the purposes of this section, "contract" includes any other arrangement
(and "contractual" is to be read accordingly).

(5) For the purposes of this section, to "harm" an animal research organisation
means-
(a) to cause the organisation to suffer loss or damage of any description, or
(b) to prevent or hinder the carrying out by the organisation of any of its
activities.

(6) This section does not apply to any act done wholly or mainly in
contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

(7) In subsection (6) "trade dispute" has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52), except that
section 218 of that Act shall be read as if-
(a) it made provision corresponding to section 244(4) of that Act, and
(b) in subsection (5), the definition of "worker" included any person falling
within paragraph (b) of the definition of "worker" in section" 244(5).'

The law is clearly designed to criminalise the activities of groups like SHAC,
SPEAK and SNGP. It could even criminalise campaigns by groups like Uncaged who
encourage consumer boycotts of groups owned by or linked to animal research
organisations.

The following example demonstrates the width of the new laws. The SHAC campaign
publishes on its website the details of a gas supplier - e.g. BOC - encouraging
its supporters to write and legally protest against BOC's involvement with
Huntingdon Life Sciences. This may soon become a criminal offence under the new
law, as the following analysis shows.

Firstly, the prosecution would have to show that the intention behind publishing
the details on the website were to harm an animal research organisation. "Harm"
is defined at paragraph 5 as causing it loss or damage of any description OR
preventing or hindering the carrying out by the organisation of any of its
activities. This is extremely wide. It would clearly cover this kind of
publication where the stated aim of the group is to close down an animal
research organisation. But it could also be used where the intention was simply
to draw attention to animal suffering at Huntingdon Life Sciences, as the
intention would be to hinder the carrying out of vivisection at the laboratory.

Secondly, SHAC must have done or threatened a "relevant act". This is defined as
any criminal act or any "tortious" act causing the second person (eg a BOC
employee) to suffer loss or damage.

There is one tort in particular known as "interfering with a lawful contract".
This can be committed if you persuade someone to break their contract with
someone else. It has been argued several times in the harassment injunction
cases against SHAC et al that the SHAC campaign is unlawful (contrary to civil
law) as it seeks to interfere with lawful contracts. Although this has never
been ruled on by a judge, there is a strong possibility that publishing the
article in the example would be deemed by a court to be tortious for this
reason. In fact even the most peaceful of protest behaviour against a supplier
or customer could become a criminal offence under the new law, as such protest
would be deemed to be interfering with a lawful contract.

Other tortious acts could include handing out defamatory leaflets (e.g. a banner
or leaflet saying "BOC profits from animal torture"), noise nuisance (eg use of
drums / megaphones on a demo) and trespass.

The "tort" must also cause the second party (e.g. BOC) to suffer loss or damage
of any description. So if BOC has to employ extra security measures as a result
of the publication then this part of the offence would be satisfied.

A "relevant act" could also be any act amounting to a criminal offence. So if
someone simply speaks on a megaphone during the course of a supplier demo or
shouts something offensive they could be committing an offence under the new law
punishable by up to 5 years.

Thirdly, the act must be intended or likely to cause the third person (e.g. BOC)
not to perform a contractual obligation owed to a third party or to terminate
any such contract or not to enter into one. So this part of the offence would be
complete if a court were satisfied that the act was likely to have this effect,
even if this were not the intention behind it. In the example, SHAC might say
that their intention was to draw BOC's attention to animal cruelty rather than
to cause BOC to sever their contract with HLS. This would be of little avail,
however, if a court were satisfied that the termination of the contract was a
likely outcome of the website publication.

This section is also defined widely enough to cover "tertiary" targeting - that
is, targeting companies two steps removed from the animal research organisation
- such as a letter asking shareholders of BOC to sell their shares. And the term
"contract" is defined as "any arrangement" between the two parties.

So it seems that something as inoffensive as a website article encouraging
people to highlight the cruelty of animal research to a customer of a laboratory
could amount to an offence under the new law. It could even criminalise consumer
boycotts if these are related to animal research.

The second of the proposed new laws against animal rights protestors is as
follows:
"Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation"
'(1) A person (A) commits an offence if, with the intention of causing a second
person (B) to abstain from doing something which B is entitled to do (or to do
something which B is entitled to abstain from doing)-
(a) A threatens B that A or somebody else will do a relevant act, and
(b) A does so wholly or mainly because B is a person falling within subsection
(2).

(2) A person falls within this subsection if he is-
(a) an employee or officer of an animal research organisation;
(b) a student at an educational establishment that is an animal research
organisation;
(c) a lessor or licensor of any premises occupied by an animal research
organisation;
(d) a person with a financial interest in an animal research organisation;
(e) a customer or supplier of an animal research organisation;
(f) a person who is contemplating becoming someone within paragraph (c), (d) or
(e);
(g) a person who is, or is contemplating becoming, a customer or supplier of
someone within paragraph (c), (d), (e) or (f);
(h) an employee or officer of someone within paragraph (c), (d), (e), (f) or
(g);
(i) a person with a financial interest in someone within paragraph (c), (d),
(e), (f) or (g);
(j) a spouse, civil partner, friend or relative of, or a person who is known
personally to, someone within any of paragraphs (a) to (i);
(k) a person who is, or is contemplating becoming, a customer or supplier of
someone within paragraph (a), (b), (h), (i) or (j); or
(l) an employer of someone within paragraph (j).

(3) For the purposes of this section an "officer" of an animal research
organisation or a person includes-
(a) where the organisation or person is a body corporate, a director, manager or
secretary
(b) where the organisation or person is a charity, a charity trustee (within the
meaning of the Charities Act 1993);
(c) where the organisation or person is a partnership, a partner.

(4) For the purposes of this section-
(a) a person is a customer or supplier of another person if he purchases goods,
services or facilities from, or (as the case may be) supplies goods, services or
facilities to, that other; and
(b) "supplier" includes a person who supplies services in pursuance of any
enactment that requires or authorises such services to be provided.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a "relevant act" is-
(a) an act amounting to a criminal offence, or
(b) a tortious act causing B or another person to suffer loss or damage of any
description.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order amend this section so as to include
within subsection (2) any description of persons framed by reference to their
connection with-
(a) an animal research organisation, or
(b) any description of persons for the time being mentioned in that subsection.

(7) This section does not apply to any act done wholly or mainly in
contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

(8) In subsection (7) "trade dispute" has the meaning given by section
(Interference with contractual relations so as to harm animal research
organisation).'"

The first ingredient of this offence is that a person must threaten another
person that they will do a relevant act. A relevant act is defined - as with the
other new offence - as any crime or any tortious act which causes another person
to suffer damage or loss of any description.

Secondly this threat must be carried out because the person against whom the
threat is made falls in to one of the categories defined in paragraph (2). These
categories include various people who are connected in some way to animal
research organisations, even if they are not directly related. For example it
includes suppliers of customers of an animal research laboratory.

This section appears to be aimed at situations where a company or individual are
told that they will be targeted if they continue to do business with an animal
research organisation. There are overlaps with the first new offence, but it
appears to be aimed at situations where someone is targeted because of their
connection to an animal research laboratory, but no contractual relationship
exists. The section is also clearly aimed at preventing protest against
employees or directors of animal research organisations.

The intention must be to cause someone not to do something they are entitled to
do (rather than to cause harm to an animal research organisation). There is no
need to show in this case that the act is intended or likely to interfere with a
lawful contract. It need only be shown that the threat is carried out because of
the person's connection to the animal research organisation. This would cover
protests for example against a friend of an animal researcher, where no actual
contractual relationship exists.

So for example, a campaign group writes to a friend of a researcher stating that
their business is going to be targeted because they are a friend of Mr X. If the
letter is deemed to be "tortious" and it causes loss or damage, then the offence
could have been committed. The letter could be tortious if, for example, it is
libellous of Mr X or if it is deemed to be civil harassment.

The government has said that these laws are not designed to prevent peaceful
protest, but clearly this is their exact purpose. They have supplied the media
with false and misleading examples of acts which they say are not currently
against the law - such as paint-strippering cars and sending defamatory letters
- and stated that the new laws are designed to stop this kind of activity. The
mainstream media has duly obliged and reproduced the government lies as fact.
This kind of process seems to accompany the introduction of most controversial
government legislation, and now seems to be the norm with any laws aimed at
animal rights protest.

The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (head of the Crown
Prosecution Service) will be required for any prosecution, and in reality
trivial breaches are not likely to be prosecuted. It is more likely that the
police will generally use it as a tool to threaten and intimidate protestors
from certain campaign groups. The new offence is punishable by up to 5 years
imprisonment making it an arrestable offence. This confers on the police powers
of arrest, search and detention which are not available for many public order
offences (See: this page.

The situation under the new laws will probably be akin to the current police
tactics enforcing the various injunctions protecting animal research
organisations and their customers and suppliers. These are mostly used by the
police as an additional arrest power; where protestors are arrested for
breaching an injunction, charges are usually dropped at a later stage or reduced
to something less serious. The people who have most to fear from the new laws
are those who are deemed to be the organisers of the SHAC, SPEAK and SNGP
campaigns. There seems to be little doubt that these campaigns would, in their
current form, become criminal under the new law.

The latest version of the amendments in the Bill is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/024/05024.103-109.html\
#jRC03.

The most recent - and probably only - debate on the law in the House of Commons
took place on 7th February 2005 and can be found here:
http://www.parliament.the-stati
onery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050207/debtext/50207-25.htm.

freeB.E.A.G.L.E.S.
Email: info@...
Website: http://www.freebeagles.org
--
!UNTIL ALL ARE FREE!
Shropshire Animal Action

www.geocities.com/animals_salop/

This email may contain information obtained or reproduced from other
organisations information mailings, or contributed by anonoymous individuals.
This does not always imply that SAA endorse or support this organisation or
individual, nor should it imply that this organisation or individual support
SAA. This information is distributed for information only and is not an
incitement to committ any criminal activivty.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]