Politics has failed to address the climate crisis in any meaningful way. Our contemporary politics which I regard as a plutocracy as opposed to a democracy – meaning that it serves a small elite of incredibly rich and powerful people – cannot address the climate crisis because it is serving the climate-destroying plutocrats. Since the system won’t change, we have to change the system. There’s no ifs or buts about this – climate records are getting broken month by month and in the summer it will be back to breaking climate records day by day. Our politics have absolutely failed to address this so we have to change our politics. It’s not a big deal – politicians need to start serving the electorate instead of the rich and powerful.
Government told to reject John Woodcock’s proposals to blacklist Palestine solidarity and climate campaign groups
UNIONS and human rights groups have called on the government to reject “profoundly anti-democratic and repressive” proposals to blacklist Palestine solidarity and climate campaign groups.
John Woodcock, Westminster’s adviser on political violence, urged the government earlier this month to ban politicians from engaging with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), as well as groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.
Mr Woodcock, who has received money from Israel lobby groups, said that the government should take a “zero-tolerance approach” to pro-Palestine protests, which he claimed were a “menace […] threatening our democracy.”
In a joint statement, civil rights orgnisations Liberty, Friends of the Earth and Amnesty International said the activities of organisations like PSC are “essential elements of our democratic system.”
“Any suggestion that the government or political parties should ban all meetings or engagement with legal civil society organisations or sections of the electorate is profoundly anti-democratic and sets a dangerous precedent,” it warned.
…
“Politicians should be listening to the wishes of the public and put pressure on Israel to end its murderous assault, rather than trying to shut down democratic engagement and debate.”
Two Just Stop Oil supporters have blocked the entrance to the Royal Courts of Justice. They took action to highlight the injustice of private injunctions being used to silence peaceful dissent in the UK, and are demanding the government end all new oil, gas and coal projects.
At around 10:10 am yesterday, Tez Burns, 35, and Callum Goode, 24, glued themselves to the entrance gates of the Royal Courts of Justice. The action comes after eighteen Just Stop Oil supporters have appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice over the past three days, facing trial over an alleged breach of a civil injunction taken out by National Highways Ltd in 2022.
On Tuesday, eleven Just Stop Oil supporters signed an undertaking committing them to no further action. In addition, six Just Stop Oil supporters, who were previously named on an injunction taken out against Insulate Britain supporters, were not offered an undertaking. Five of these have accepted the breach and will be sentenced today. Both Callum and Tez have refused to accept the breach and have pushed for the case to be heard at trial, which is currently ongoing.
A Just Stop Oil spokesperson said:
“Injunctions are private laws bought by corporations and government agencies. Typically they are used to protect someone from harassment, and are intended as a remedy not a punishment, but since the Insulate Britain campaign began, they’ve been increasingly used by the State and private companies to silence dissent by climate resistors. They are being used to circumnavigate the usual rule of law, where defendants appear before a high court judge with no jury. They potentially expose defendants to ‘double jeopardy’ for the same action, where they may also be facing criminal charges. Typically injunctions result in astronomical legal costs which are applied to people named on an injunction, even if they have never broken it. Where defendants are offered an undertaking- which commits them to a certain action- and they choose to sign it, all costs are then divided equally amongst any remaining defendants. This is a divide and rule tactic being used to silence those speaking out about the criminality of politicians and business leaders.”
Callum Goode 24, a maths graduate from Ashbourne, said:
“I’m being taken to court for allegedly breaking a court order I wasn’t even aware of, granted just two days before I climbed a gantry over the M25 to demand an end to new oil and gas licences. Hidden away, a judge with no jury will be deciding what happens to me. I’ve already spent 11 weeks in prison without trial for the action I took that day and I will also face a criminal charge- this double jeopardy is obvious injustice.
For this stand I’m likely to face tens of thousands of pounds in costs and potentially prison and I’m only one of hundreds facing the injustice of these injunctions. In court, I have told the truth as I have sworn to – that resisting a government that is knowingly taking actions that are killing countless people and risking hundreds of millions more lives, is the only moral option.”
The use of injunctions to silence climate defenders has received international condemnation. Michel Forst, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention recently said: “I am deeply troubled at the use of civil injunctions to ban protest in certain areas, including on public roadways.” adding: “The repression that environmental activists who use peaceful civil disobedience are currently facing in Europe is a major threat to democracy and human rights.”
“The environmental emergency that we are collectively facing, and that scientists have been documenting for decades, cannot be addressed if those raising the alarm and demanding action are criminalised for it. The only legitimate response to peaceful environmental activism and civil disobedience at this point is that the authorities, the media, and the public realise how essential it is for us all to listen to what environmental defenders have to say.”
Just Stop Oil protesting in London 6 December 2022.
This system is fucked, politics is failing us, we need a revolution or we really do face rule by ‘the mob’. As we pass through 1.5C of heating to 2C and then the predicted 3C in the lifetime of many alive today, we will lose all we cherish and value. Our treasured landscapes, the rule of law, education, healthcare, pensions – and yes the people we love. We will not be able to feed ourselves and those who rule us do not care. Look at Gaza, this is what they are prepared to let happen. Genocide is now acceptable.
In response, nonviolent civil resistance to a harmful state will continue, with coordinated, radical actions that reach out to new people and capture the attention of the world. Alongside this, a new political project will be set up. This will run local assemblies and will support and stand candidates to shape the electoral debate. A coordinating structure known as Umbrella, will support these projects and this will be the heart of our community of resistance.
Just Stop Oil will continue to be the major focus until we win, but we have a new three part demand: No New Oil, Revoke Tory Licences and Just Stop Oil by 2030. In addition to disrupting high-profile cultural events and continuing our Stop Tory Oil campaign, focussing on MP’s and those in power, this summer Just Stop Oil will commence a campaign of high-level actions at sites of key importance to the fossil fuel industry – airports.
In addition to Just Stop Oil, young people and students will be taking action in a new campaign that will demand an end to genocide – both in Palestine, and globally, from the continued drilling and burning of oil and gas.
Umbrella will launch Assemble, a democracy project that will mobilise hundreds of people by running local assemblies on issues of concern to communities across the country and giving them pathways to action. The goal is to create a “People’s House” to parallel the House of Commons as the first step towards having permanent legally binding citizens assemblies- a democratic revolution.
Umbrella will be the hub for fundraising, mobilisation and directing resources to a range of new campaigns and groups, including Robin Hood, a major new campaign based around a demand to properly fund our public services by taxing the richest in society.
Each of these campaigns will share the values of nonviolence and accountability.
The system is fucked. You know it, everyone knows it. Don’t just sit around and watch everything collapse. Build what comes next: a revolution in politics, economics – our entire way of life.
Liberty’s lawyers say police feedback was ‘directly incorporated into the final text’ of Braverman’s anti-protest laws | Richard Baker / In Pictures via Getty Images
High Court told government only sought feedback from people it knew would agree with its controversial changes
Only police were consulted on anti-protest laws before they were forced through by the UK government, according to human rights lawyers suing the home secretary.
Campaign group Liberty has been in court this week challenging James Cleverly over amendments to the Public Order Act that were pushed through by his predecessor, Suella Braverman, last year.
Liberty was given permission to take legal action against Braverman in October after she used secondary legislation – subject to less parliamentary scrutiny – to strengthen police powers to shut down protests that cause “more than minor disruption to the life of the community”.
The group says Braverman’s actions amounted to a “serious overreach” and that she acted unlawfully because the changes to the law had already been rejected in the House of Lords.
And Liberty has labelled a consultation on the proposed laws in 2022 as “one-sided” and “unfair” – because the Home Office only consulted police. The government gave the Met, Staffordshire Police, Essex Police, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and the College of Policing opportunities to give their views on the legislation, but did not seek input from anyone who might be impacted by the laws.
Liberty argued: “The [home secretary] voluntarily embarked upon a process of consultation about the contents and drafting of the regulations but then only consulted a narrow group of stakeholders in support of the amendments rather than an even-handed group representative of all those whose interests may be adversely impacted.”
Its lawyers also say police feedback was “directly incorporated into the final text” of the amendments to the Public Order Act, including on the definition of “serious disruption to the life of the community”.
The new powers have been criticised by Liberty and other human rights groups due to the vagueness of the new language, which campaigners say allows police to shut down almost any protests. The changes forced through by Braverman mean officers can interfere with and arrest anyone taking part in protests that they believe will cause “more than minor disruption to the life of the community”.
Police feedback on “cumulative disruption” was also included in the final amendments to the act. Under this law, officers must take into account all “relevant cumulative disruption”, regardless of whether or not your protest is related to any other protest or disruption in the same area. Before this amendment, there was no explicit requirement for police to consider this.
While the government held multiple meetings with police representatives in December 2022 to seek input and “refine policy”, Liberty argues that the fact that no rights groups or members of the public were consulted is rooted in “procedural unfairness” and that the changes must be reversed.
Katy Watts, Liberty’s lawyer leading the case said: “The government has shown it’s determined to put itself above the law, avoid scrutiny and become untouchable – so it’s no surprise it only consulted people it knew would agree with its new law.
“Our democracy exists to make sure a government can’t just do whatever it wants, and an important part of that is consulting a wide range of voices on new laws – especially those likely to raise reasonable concerns. This improves government decision making and helps to make our laws better. The government’s failure to do this is just one of the ways it acted unlawfully when it forced these powers though.”
The laws were initially brought in to clamp down on protests by climate activist groups like Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain, and Extinction Rebellion, but other protesters are now also being targeted.
The government has accused pro-Palestine protesters of “hijacking legitimate protests”, “shouting down and coercing elected representatives”, and has also called them “un-British” and “undemocratic”.
In a new ‘defending democracy policing protocol’ released this week, the government pledged £31m of additional funding to protect MPs after safety fears were raised.
The Home Office said it wants to “protect the democratic process from intimidation” but according to its own policy paper, only met with police representatives from the National Police Chiefs Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and the College of Policing.
The Home Office did not respond to a request for comment.
The two-day hearing ended yesterday and Liberty’s lawyers expect a decision could take up to three months.
