"Novartis threaten the right to protest banners and costumes"

On 24 Oct, 06:14, Doug wrote:
Odd, I though that right had been under threat for quite some time and
was on the verge of being extinguished here in the UK with non-violent
protesters being sent to prison for many years.

"On Wednesday 28th Novartis are back in court trying to extend their
injunction against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. You may think that
this is just an animal rights issue, but the new terms that Novartis
are seeking will set a frightening precedent that will affect
everyone's right to protest.

The background is that SHAC are holding a march against animal testing
in Horsham on 31st October, which will end up at Novartis' premises
there. SHAC are only permitted to have one such large scale
demonstration per year. The last such one was in April 2008. The theme
of this years march is naturally Halloween - given the timing.

On the Tuesday just gone, at a routine hearing, Novartis and their
solicitor, the now infamous Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden (well known for
claiming to protect peoples rights to protest but is behind some of
their most draconian terms - remember the EDO and Heathrow
injunctions) sought to introduce terms that would among other things:

1. forbid protestors from wearing any sort of face covering, in
particular animal costumes, skull masks and all that. It is so worded
that even people covering up against the cold would be affected.

2. force protestors to obey the bylaws of Horsham, regardless of
whether they are compatible with the human rights act. This would stop
people using megaphones on demos or hang banners.

3. very scarily try to restrict the right of protestors to have
slogans and pictures on their banners. Images of vivisected animals
would be banned. Slogans about how Novartis have paid Huntingdon Life
Sciences to kill and murder animals for them, or pointing out that
drugs from pharmaceutical companies are among the biggest killers in
hospitals (just look at the figures for "adverse drug reactions")
would all be banned by this injunction. Underlying this is also an
attempt to have the name of Novartis removed from banners so they can
avoid criticism..."

Mo
http:/www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/10/440477.html

--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Ooops! Sent to the wrong newsgroup. Apologies. Still, I suppose it
might apply to Critical Mass.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:22:30 +0100, "Sam" wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...

I agree with you entirely about the idiocy of the bunny-hugger's position,
but it's a dangerous precedent to deny civil rights and free expression to
people on the grounds that their beliefs are wrong or stupid.

But how is asking someone to adhere to local bylaws the same as denying them
their civil rights?

I've been in places where there used to be bylaws saying that 'colored people'
had to sit at the back of the bus. Bad argument. Local bylaws have to be
compatible with human rights; if they're not, they can be broken with impunity,
injunction or no injunction.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

Mike Ross wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:22:30 +0100, "Sam" wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...

I agree with you entirely about the idiocy of the bunny-hugger's position,
but it's a dangerous precedent to deny civil rights and free expression to
people on the grounds that their beliefs are wrong or stupid.
But how is asking someone to adhere to local bylaws the same as denying them
their civil rights?

I've been in places where there used to be bylaws saying that 'colored people'
had to sit at the back of the bus. Bad argument. Local bylaws have to be
compatible with human rights; if they're not, they can be broken with impunity,
injunction or no injunction.

Bad argument and worse example.

There is no human right to make loud noise which is irrelevant to the lives
of those on which it is inflicted and which they find annoying and offensive.

Laws restricting the amount of elective noise that can be made are to be
supported and complied with, in order not to breach the rights of others to
the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their homes and environment.

"Mike Ross" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:22:30 +0100, "Sam" wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...

I agree with you entirely about the idiocy of the bunny-hugger's
position,
but it's a dangerous precedent to deny civil rights and free expression
to
people on the grounds that their beliefs are wrong or stupid.

But how is asking someone to adhere to local bylaws the same as denying
them
their civil rights?

I've been in places where there used to be bylaws saying that 'colored
people'
had to sit at the back of the bus. Bad argument. Local bylaws have to be
compatible with human rights; if they're not, they can be broken with
impunity,
injunction or no injunction.

Completely irellevant.
If the locals are expected to adhere to bylaws, with the threat of
punishment if they don't, what gives protesters the right to ignire them
just because they don't agree with them?
What you are proposing is a state of anarchy.

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Sam" considered Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:50:54 -0000
the perfect time to write:

"Mike Ross" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:22:30 +0100, "Sam" wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
I agree with you entirely about the idiocy of the bunny-hugger's
position,
but it's a dangerous precedent to deny civil rights and free expression
to
people on the grounds that their beliefs are wrong or stupid.
But how is asking someone to adhere to local bylaws the same as denying
them
their civil rights?
I've been in places where there used to be bylaws saying that 'colored
people'
had to sit at the back of the bus. Bad argument. Local bylaws have to be
compatible with human rights; if they're not, they can be broken with
impunity,
injunction or no injunction.
Completely irellevant.
If the locals are expected to adhere to bylaws, with the threat of
punishment if they don't, what gives protesters the right to ignire them
just because they don't agree with them?
What you are proposing is a state of anarchy.

And what you are proposing is that local politicians can pass illegal
byelaws without them being challenged.

What, would you say, is an "illegal byelaw"?

On 25 Oct, 18:45, JNugent wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
"Sam" considered Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:50:54 -0000
the perfect time to write:

"Mike Ross" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:22:30 +0100, "Sam" wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
I agree with you entirely about the idiocy of the bunny-hugger's
position,
but it's a dangerous precedent to deny civil rights and free expression
to
people on the grounds that their beliefs are wrong or stupid.
But how is asking someone to adhere to local bylaws the same as denying
them
their civil rights?
I've been in places where there used to be bylaws saying that 'colored
people'
had to sit at the back of the bus. Bad argument. Local bylaws have to be
compatible with human rights; if they're not, they can be broken with
impunity,
injunction or no injunction.
Completely irellevant.
If the locals are expected to adhere to bylaws, with the threat of
punishment if they don't, what gives protesters the right to ignire them
just because they don't agree with them?
What you are proposing is a state of anarchy.

And what you are proposing is that local politicians can pass illegal
byelaws without them being challenged.

What, would you say, is an "illegal byelaw"?

'Cyclists dismount'?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...tember2007.htm

"Usually cyclist dismount signs are placed where the roads are very
narrow, or at public roundabouts where there isn't enough width for a
cyclist to travel through safely. They are also used where it is
considered to be dangerous for cyclists to continue, such as in this
case, approaching or descending a steep hill.

However they are not mandatory signs, they are advisory - so although
they will indicate an area where it may be safer to dismount and to
push your bicycle, you are not legally obliged to do this and you will
NOT be breaking the law if you choose not to do so."

http://www.trafficsignsandmeanings.c...y-get-off.html

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:
On 25 Oct, 18:45, JNugent wrote:

What, would you say, is an "illegal byelaw"?

'Cyclists dismount'?

"Usually cyclist dismount signs are placed where the roads are very
narrow, or at public roundabouts where there isn't enough width for a
cyclist to travel through safely. They are also used where it is
considered to be dangerous for cyclists to continue, such as in this
case, approaching or descending a steep hill.

However they are not mandatory signs, they are advisory - so although
they will indicate an area where it may be safer to dismount and to
push your bicycle, you are not legally obliged to do this and you will
NOT be breaking the law if you choose not to do so."

In that case, how is it an 'illegal byelaw' as you were asked?

Do you know what a byelaw is?

Doug wrote:
On 25 Oct, 18:45, JNugent wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
"Sam" considered Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:50:54 -0000
the perfect time to write:
"Mike Ross" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:22:30 +0100, "Sam" wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
I agree with you entirely about the idiocy of the bunny-hugger's
position,
but it's a dangerous precedent to deny civil rights and free expression
to
people on the grounds that their beliefs are wrong or stupid.
But how is asking someone to adhere to local bylaws the same as denying
them
their civil rights?
I've been in places where there used to be bylaws saying that 'colored
people'
had to sit at the back of the bus. Bad argument. Local bylaws have to be
compatible with human rights; if they're not, they can be broken with
impunity,
injunction or no injunction.
Completely irellevant.
If the locals are expected to adhere to bylaws, with the threat of
punishment if they don't, what gives protesters the right to ignire them
just because they don't agree with them?
What you are proposing is a state of anarchy.
And what you are proposing is that local politicians can pass illegal
byelaws without them being challenged.
What, would you say, is an "illegal byelaw"?

'Cyclists dismount'?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...tember2007.htm

"Usually cyclist dismount signs are placed where the roads are very
narrow, or at public roundabouts where there isn't enough width for a
cyclist to travel through safely. They are also used where it is
considered to be dangerous for cyclists to continue, such as in this
case, approaching or descending a steep hill.

However they are not mandatory signs, they are advisory - so although
they will indicate an area where it may be safer to dismount and to
push your bicycle, you are not legally obliged to do this and you will
NOT be breaking the law if you choose not to do so."

http://www.trafficsignsandmeanings.c...y-get-off.html

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

What has that got to do with bylaws?

--

Tony Dragon

On 26 Oct, 08:42, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 25 Oct, 18:45, JNugent wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
"Sam" considered Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:50:54 -0000
the perfect time to write:
"Mike Ross" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:22:30 +0100, "Sam" wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
I agree with you entirely about the idiocy of the bunny-hugger's
position,
but it's a dangerous precedent to deny civil rights and free expression
to
people on the grounds that their beliefs are wrong or stupid.
But how is asking someone to adhere to local bylaws the same as denying
them
their civil rights?
I've been in places where there used to be bylaws saying that 'colored
people'
had to sit at the back of the bus. Bad argument. Local bylaws have to be
compatible with human rights; if they're not, they can be broken with
impunity,
injunction or no injunction.
Completely irellevant.
If the locals are expected to adhere to bylaws, with the threat of
punishment if they don't, what gives protesters the right to ignire them
just because they don't agree with them?
What you are proposing is a state of anarchy.
And what you are proposing is that local politicians can pass illegal
byelaws without them being challenged.
What, would you say, is an "illegal byelaw"?

'Cyclists dismount'?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...he-month/Septe...

"Usually cyclist dismount signs are placed where the roads are very
narrow, or at public roundabouts where there isn't enough width for a
cyclist to travel through safely. They are also used where it is
considered to be dangerous for cyclists to continue, such as in this
case, approaching or descending a steep hill.

However they are not mandatory signs, they are advisory - so although
they will indicate an area where it may be safer to dismount and to
push your bicycle, you are not legally obliged to do this and you will
NOT be breaking the law if you choose not to do so."

http://www.trafficsignsandmeanings.c...nt-sign-compul...


What has that got to do with bylaws?

"She was, I have to admit, breaking the law, or at least a by-law. She
was cycling across Wandsworth Common, which is forbidden. There are
lots of signs that tell you this: one pathway even has the words "No
Cycling" neatly embedded in it in a manner that would do credit to
Ground Force, while other signs insist: "Cyclists dismount"."

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:

What, would you say, is an "illegal byelaw"?

'Cyclists dismount'?

What has that got to do with bylaws?

He wouldn't know. He has no idea what a byelaw is.