"Novartis threaten the right to protest banners and costumes"

"Doug" wrote in message
...
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.

Not entirely sure why you think this one (number 2) is a bad thing.
Why should protestors be given special dispensation to break the local
bylaws, which everyone else is expected to adhere to?