Campaign against Climate Change

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2809171.ece

Five million people in peaceful environmental organisations such as the National Trust and the RSPB have become the subject of an extraordinary legal attempt to limit their right to protest.

If you're a member of the National Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust or Friends of the Earth, then you could be banned from Britain's biggest airport. And the Piccadilly line. And parts of Paddington station. And sections of the M4. All because the authorities want to halt a protest against climate change...

27 July 2007 00:57

Heathrow puts up legal barricades to keep away protesters
If you're a member of the National Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust or Friends of the Earth, then you could be banned from Britain's biggest airport. And the Piccadilly line. And parts of Paddington station. And sections of the M4. All because the authorities want to halt a protest against climate change...
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Published: 27 July 2007

Five million people in peaceful environmental organisations such as the National Trust and the RSPB have become the subject of an extraordinary legal attempt to limit their right to protest.

In legal documents seen by The Independent, the British Airports Authority has begun moves that would allow police to arrest members of 15 environmental groups to prevent them taking part in demonstrations against airport expansion.

While the threat of terrorism and consequent security checks have been dominating the headlines during the start of the summer holidays, BAA has been planning a pre-emptive strike against environmentalists.

Next week, in response to a demonstration due to be held outside Heathrow airport, BAA will go to the High Court to seek judicial approval for an anti-environmentalist injunction, the terms of which are so wide they have provoked astonishment among the green movement. Any one of five million people in groups such as the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England could be arrested for travelling on the London Underground or possessing a kite.

Anyone failing to give 24 hours' notice of a protest could be arrested for travelling on sections of the motorway or from standing on platforms 6 and 7 at Paddington station to catch the Heathrow Express. The terms of the injunction would cover: "All railway trains and carriages operating upon the Piccadilly line of the London Underground System ; the M4 and all service stations between and including junctions 3 and 6; and the M25 and all service stations between and including junctions 13 and 15..."

Civil rights campaigners claim the injunction, which will be heard on Wednesday, would put new limits on the right to peaceful protest. Liberty described the "massively wide ban" - which has no time limit - as ridiculously unenforceable. "The dangerous and undemocratic trend of large corporations seeking to trample the legal right to peaceful protest should be taken very seriously by the courts," the human rights group protested.

BAA insisted it had a duty to protect the travelling public from disruption during the holiday season and was not seeking to prevent legal protest. As part of the second annual Camp for Climate Action, up to 5,000 protesters were to pitch tents for a week at or near Heathrow from 14 August in protest at plans for a third runway that would increase flights by 50 per cent. A day of peaceful direct action, such as occupying an airline office, was planned but organisers have promised not to compromise safety or inconvenience passengers.

On Monday, BAA served an injunction on four protest leaders: Joss Garman from Camp for Climate Action and Plane Stupid; Leo Murray, of Plane Stupid; Geraldine Nicholson, of the Heathrow campaign group No Third Runway Action Group; and John Stewart, of Hacan and AirportWatch, an umbrella group of 10 environmental groups such as the RSPB, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the National Trust, whose members total more than five million people. Members of all the groups would be banned from setting up a camp at or in the vicinity of Heathrow and from carrying items including spades, saws, ropes, cables, aerosol cans, balloons, whistles and loudhailers.

The protesters would be allowed to gather at three protest points on the outskirts of the airport providing they did not exceed an as yet unspecified number, and gave their names, car registration plates and advance notice. They would not be allowed to use any megaphones, klaxons or sirens or go within 100 metres of any airport operation.

BAA said in a statement: "During the summer holiday period up to 200,000 people pass through Heathrow daily... These people would suffer as a result of any unlawful or irresponsible behaviour aimed at disrupting the smooth operation of the airport."

Mr Garman said that he was "stunned" at the breadth of the injunction. "It seems that having totally lost the argument on climate change they are resorting to bullying tactics. It is by far the biggest crackdown on civil liberties we have seen in terms of peaceful protest.

Martin Harper of the RSPB said: "It does seem extraordinary at a time when half of the country is knee deep in flood water and the Government is bringing forward legislation to tackle climate change that BAA is having to resort to bullying tactics to halt protests."

Why the airport has become a target

Activists are targeting Heathrow because of the threat posed to new climate-change targets by the planned expansion of airports nationwide. They believe the protests can influence aviation policy in the same way that the Newbury bypass protests in 1996 led to Labour calling a halt to the building of more roads.

At stake is the future of the world's busiest international airport. Heathrow currently has a limit of 480,000 flights a year. Allowing both existing runways to handle take-offs and landings and building a third runway could take that to 800,000 flights. Twelve local authorities in west London have formed the 2M group to oppose the plans which they say will leave a "constant rumble" over the homes of people in Kensington & Chelsea, Fulham, Richmond, Kingston and other areas. Members of the NoTRAG and Hacan Clearskies campaigning groups are also fighting the proposals.

The Government argues airport expansion is necessary to ensure continued economic growth. According to a study by Oxford Economic Forecasting last month, the planned airport expansion will increase GDP by £13bn by 2030, outweighing "climate change costs". A third runway would demolish the village of Sipson and part of Harmondsworth.

Bryan Sobey, 78, president of the Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents' Association, said: "It's a bit like ethnic cleansing without the guns. It will take an entire village and part of another village out of existence completely."

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/27/climatechange

Catch-all Heathrow protest injunction could bar millions

· Climate activists fight legal move by BAA
· Met chief warns of disruption for travellers

* John Vidal and Dan Milmo
* The Guardian
* Friday July 27 2007

Heathrow airport is targeting climate change activists with a sweeping injunction which could prevent members of the RSPB and the National Trust, plus millions more affiliated to environmental organisations, from attending a green protest.

The airport's owner, BAA, said it wants to minimise disruption when the Camp for Climate Action is held there from August 14 to 21. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, gave warning yesterday that disruption to the airport was likely.

BAA named three individuals on the application as well as "members and supporters" of Airport Watch, a coalition of environment groups which together total nearly 5 million members.

Under the injunction, a ban on approaching the airport would cover National Trust, Woodland Trust and RSPB supporters, as well as members of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The case will be heard next Wednesday.

"This could stop millions of people who are members of these groups going to Heathrow," said Kate Harrison of Matrix chambers, who will be representing some of the people and groups named on the injunction. "The judge will have to decide whether it applies to all the individual members of the groups. You have to go back to the miners' strike [in the 1980s] to find an injunction on this scale." Green groups are working together to challenge the injunction.

Despite assurances from camp organisers that no one would try to occupy runways or go "airside", the company said yesterday that it feared disruption. "We are throwing the net very wide to make sure the airport can operate securely," said a BAA spokesman. "People have rights to protest but people also have the right to go on holiday, too.

"The intention is not to stop protest or to withhold people's rights in any way. Legally, if you take it to its very extreme, it does mean that people cannot go to the airport to protest. But that is not realistic."

Sir Ian said the protest could be very disruptive. "It will require a very large number of officers to deliver it. The Met is quite capable of delivering those officers. We have been working our way through what we need and we will provide it ... But it is likely there will be some disruption at Heathrow," he said.

After the terror attack on Glasgow airport, police are concerned about the camp and have been stepping up security. "You would be very silly indeed to try to breach the security of a British airport in any way," said one airport source yesterday.

The application for the injunction, seen by the Guardian, covers airport land, local villages, named areas in and around London including Paddington station, the Heathrow Express, which is owned by BAA, the Piccadilly line on the London Underground, and stretches of the M4 and M25. In theory, say protesters, it would cover the Prince of Wales, who is president of the National Trust, and celebrities who have worked with groups trying to stop the airport expanding.

"This is corporate bullying, designed to shut down peaceful protest," said John Stewart of Hacan, a local group named in the BAA injunction. "Local people are furious."

Heathrow has been targeted by climate change campaigners as the government prepares to start the formal process of building a third runway. The runway is backed by ministers, airlines and business leaders but opposed by local residents and green activists, who say expansion will contravene environmental policy.

Up to 1,000 protesters and locals are expected to attend the camp at a site to be announced. The peaceful protest is expected to attract scientists, students and church organisations concerned about aviation's role in climate change. One day has been set aside for "direct action".

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/aviation-industry-takes-the-qu...

Aviation industry takes five million people to court
Posted by bex on 26 July 2007.

Planes on the runway

Here's a doozy for you: on Wednesday, the aviation industry is taking five million people - including a lot of their own staff - to court. If you're a member or supporter of a group that's concerned about climate change, the chances are you're a defendant too.

The industry seems to want to ban five million of us from Heathrow and all routes to the airport, including the Piccadilly line, parts of the rail network, and sections of the M25 and M4.

In three weeks' time, the Camp for Climate Action is due to gather near Heathrow to peacefully protest against Heathrow's vast contribution to climate change (the airport's planes emit more greenhouse gases than many individual countries) and its planned third runway expansion.

The owner of Heathrow, the British Airports Authority (BAA), seems to be, frankly, terrified.

It's seeking an injunction, which names as defendants "all persons acting as members, participants or supporters" of anti-aviation group Plane Stupid, anti-noise group HACAN and AirportWatch. The injunction is to stop people from setting foot on Heathrow and "the arterial infrastructure serving" it.

So far, so good. Just another example of the aviation industry's corporate bullying, albeit a draconian one.

But the interesting bit is that AirportWatch, named on the injunction, is just an umbrella organisation. Its member organisations include the National Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, Transport 2000, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, among many others.

The combined supporter base of these organisations is well over five million people.

And it includes the Queen, patron of the RSBP and CPRE. Prince Charles, president of the National Trust, would also be banned from Heathrow and its surrounds - as would Imran Khan and Shane Warne, who recently fund-raised for HACAN.

Even more bizarrely, the injunction covers many of BAA's own staff. Their 2006 Corporate Responsibility report (pdf) tells us that BAA sent its airport staff to the RSPB nature reserve at Lochwinnoch "where they spent the day building nest boxes for the native bird population". Which seems to me to fit the description of "persons acting as members, participants or supporters".

When we got the news, after sitting around open-mouthed for a bit, we suspected that BAA didn't know who or what AirportWatch was; they'd panicked, we thought. Hadn't done their research.

But 'a source' who's spoken to BAA has just told us that BAA is deliberately making the ban as broad as possible, and leaving it up to the police to apply it with common sense. Which means, if BAA wins, the police will have the right to stop you, me or Her Maj from, say, getting on "all railway trains and carriages operating upon the Piccadilly line"...

I've been trying to get hold of an electronic copy of the injunction for all the defendants out there but I've had no luck so far (the version delivered was so large it filled four ring-binders). If I manage, I'll post it here.

Take action!

If you're not one of the defendants and are feeling a bit left out, feel free to show a bit of solidarity; just sign up to a green organisation of your choice. If we can get another five million people banned from Heathrow, BAA might find it doesn't need its third runway after all... In fact, they could solve all their problems of lost luggage, queues and general chaos while they're at it.