Saving Iceland

Freedomfries

Það er löngu kominn tími til að við Íslendingar tökum til endurskoðunar hvernig rætt er um aktívista almennt og sérstaklega umhverfisaktívista. Það er ekki hægt að horfa framhjá því að þessi umræða hefur einkennst af ákveðinni móðursýki og fórdómum. Fyrir nokkrum árum var mikið talað um „atvinnumótmælendur“ – og í kommentakerfum og á moggablogginu er alltaf hægt að ganga út frá því sem vísu að finna einhverja kjána sem þykjast vita allt um að vestrænum samfélögum stafi alvarleg ógn af öllum þessum ungmennum – að hér séu á ferð hættulegir róttæklingar sem séu allt eins líklegir til að grípa til ofbeldisverka til að koma sjónarmiðum sínum á framfæri.

Þessi moldbúalega umræðuhefð hafði mikil áhrif á umfjöllun um nímenningana því í kommentakerfunum, á moggablogginu og jafnvel hjá virtari álitsgjöfum, voru þeir umsvifalaust bendlaðir við Saving Iceland (sem margir virðast telja hættuleg og sérlega ó-íslensk samtök) og talað um „hettuklædd ungmenni“.

Í ljósi þess að réttarfarsi ákæruvaldsins og skrifstofustjóra Alþingis virðist hafa raknað upp í héraðsdómi, og í ljósi frétta af því að eini raunverulegi „atvinnumótmælandinn“ við Kárahnjúka hefur fundist (flugumaður á launum bresku lögreglunnar) er full ástæða til að þessi hugsun verði tekin til alvarlegrar og gagngerrar endurskoðunar.

George Monbiot á The Guardian skrifaði athyglisverða grein um daginn um þetta efni – og bendir þar á þá merkilegu staðreynd að það eru ekki til neinar heimildir um að umhverfisverndarsinnar hafi framið hryðjuverk. Monbiot gerir greinarmun á dýraverndunarsinnum (sem hafa vissulega gripið til aðgerða, samanber Sea Sheapard hér á landi) og umhverfisverndarsinnum (samtökum á borð við Saving Iceland), og vissulega er grein hans einvörðungu byggð á gögnum frá Bretlandi, en niðurstaðan er þessi:

Samfélaginu stafar engin ógn af umhverfisverndarsinnum! Ekki nein.

This is what the head of a police unit set up to monitor domestic extremism said in 2009: „I’ve never said – and we don’t see – that any environmentalist is going to or has committed any violent acts.“ That chimes with my experience. Two years ago I searched all the literature I could lay hands on, and couldn’t find a single proven instance of a planned attempt in the UK to harm people in the cause of defending the environment. (That’s in sharp contrast to animal rights campaigning, where there has been plenty of violence.) No one has yet produced a factual challenge to that conclusion. Yet every year a shadowy body spends most of its £5m budget on countering a non-existent threat that officers call eco-terrorism.

Málið er að í kringum umhverfisverndarsinnaógnina hefur vaxið upp risavaxinn öryggisiðnaður – og ímynduð ógn af hettuklæddum ungmennum og umhverfisverndarsinnum er notaður til að réttlæta innanríkisnjósnir og frelsisskerðingu allra borgaranna. Það eina sem samtök á borð við Saving Iceland ógna eru fjárhagslegir skamtímahagsmunir stórfyrirtækja og svo kjördæmapot misklókra framsóknarmanna allra flokka.

Monbiot víkur talinu að Mark Kennedy – atvinnumótmælanda bresku lögreglunnar – og þeirri sérkennilegu staðreynd að hann hafi starfað í einhverskonar furðulegu leynibatteríi sem ekki laut neinu lýðræðislegu eftirliti:

The National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) employed the undercover officer Mark Kennedy, who was embedded and bedded for seven years among peaceful green activists. Kennedy claims that it has supervised 15 other undercover agents on the same mission. But what is the mission? Sorry, can’t tell you. NPOIU is run by the Association of Chief Police Officers. As Simon Jenkins pointed out last week , Acpo is not a police force but a private limited company, beyond democratic scrutiny, not subject to freedom of information laws. While it receives much of its funding from the government, it is not accountable to the public. It looks to me like a state-sanctioned private militia, fighting public protest on behalf of corporations.

Það sem þessi samtök gera er að safna upplýsingum um skoðanir borgaranna og setja saman lista yfir fólk með „óæskilegar skoðanir“. Og áður en við förum að fussa er rétt að hafa í huga að við vitnaleiðslur í máli nímenninganna viðurkenndi rannsóknarlögreglumaður að lögreglan í Reykjavík gerir slíkt hið sama: Fólk sem grunað er um að vera mótmælendur er spurt út í hvaða samtökum og félögum það tilheyrir. Það er reyndar full ástæða til að það fari fram rannsókn á þessari gagnaöflun íslensku lögreglunnar. En það er önnur saga.

Until it was forced to back down by bad publicity, one of the other units that Acpo runs published a list of domestic extremists, to help its officers identify dangerous elements. Dr Peter Harbour, a 70-year-old retired physicist and university lecturer, found his name on the list. Apart from the occasional speeding ticket, he has never been tried or convicted of an offence. So why was he on the database? Because he had peacefully marched, demonstrated and petitioned against a proposal by RWE npower, which owned Didcot power station, to drain the beautiful lake beside his village and fill it with pulverised fly ash. He had broken no law, damaged no property, issued no threats. Dr Harbour wrote to the unit, asking for his name to be removed from its blacklist. It refused.

NPOIU, the unit for which Kennedy worked, runs a similar list of extremists – which means people who have attended a protest or a public meeting. Surveillance officers are given spotter cards so that they can follow people on the database and monitor their movements. Vehicles which have been used by protesters are tracked all over the country by number-plate recognition cameras. One man, who has never been convicted of an offence, has been stopped 25 times because his car appears on the list.

There is no obvious connection between the kind of people in these files and criminality: they’re distinguished only by the fact that they have taken an interest in politics. You might expect that this would mark them out as good citizens. But this policing appears to have nothing to do with the public good. If the claims that Kennedy also functioned as an agent provocateur are true, it has nothing to do with upholding the law. Acpo appears to be persecuting peaceful citizens who are trying to protect the places and values they cherish from destructive companies.

Í þessu máli er varla hægt að tala um annað en einbeittan brotavilja lögreglunnar og stjórnvalda – einbeittan vilja til að troða á mannréttindum og svipta almenning sem hefur ákveðnar skoðanir borgaralegum réttindum. Og slíkt varðar lífsgæði okkar allra, ekki bara þeirra sem verða fyrir njósnunum heldur líka hinna, því ef við leyfum lögreglunni að njósna um suma og troða á mannréttindum sumra búum við ekki lengur í frjálsu samfélagi.

Twenty of the activists whose plans Kennedy betrayed to his handlers were convicted on the desperate charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass. This means they had decided to step on to property belonging to the power company E.ON. The prosecutors couldn’t find anything more serious to throw at them. Aggravated trespass is a crime invented by the previous Conservative government, to prosecute protesters who weren’t otherwise breaking the law. The judge who passed sentence described these dangerous criminals as „decent“ people with „the highest possible motives“ (they were campaigning to prevent climate breakdown). The case against another six was dropped when the police realised they would have to release documents about Kennedy’s activities, and tanked the trial.

This is what the £1.75m it cost to run Mark Kennedy has delivered; this is the sole legal product of seven years of work by a unit ostensibly fighting terrorism and extremism. Twenty peaceful people convicted on a pathetic charge, by a jury from whom the police withheld key facts; another group walking free after those facts threatened to emerge. Does anyone believe this represents good value? Does anyone think this is proportionate policing?

Even the Daily Mail today fulminated about Acpo’s lack of accountability and questioned its relationship with corporations and the lawfulness of its actions. It pointed out that „the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy„.

This looks like a possible turning point. The government may have to keep its promise to reform the laws restricting civil liberties. But don’t expect too much. Kennedy says his superior officer told him that the information he gathered „was going directly to Tony Blair’s desk„. This sounds plausible. It accords with the paranoid style that Blair imported into British politics. It fits with his instinctive support of power against the people, and his efforts to free the corporations (banks included) from the care they owe to society, while passing draconian laws to prevent society from challenging them. This government shares his inclinations.

Monbiot bendir á að í þessari ójöfnu baráttu lögreglu og róttæklinga er það lögreglan sem er óvinur borgaralegs samfélags, óvinur lýðræðis og „vestrænna gilda“ – í þessum átökum stafar óbreyttum borgurun mun meiri ógn af framferði lögreglunnar en hettuklæddu ungmennunum:

The people challenging corporate power are often defamed as destructive anarchists. Yet they are seeking to defend the fabric of our lives from the anarchic destruction of market fundamentalism. The police, on the other hand, are fighting – often without obvious justification – to shield destructive companies from both unlawful and lawful challenges. They are defending neoliberalism’s atomising, kleptocratic projects from those who question them.

So who are the domestic extremists? Which body represents the real threat to society, to public order and the rule of law? A group of peaceful campaigners acting on „the highest possible motives“? Or a private corporation running a secret spy ring, which looks as if it’s using police budgets to try to change the political character of the nation?

This government claims to be concerned about both civil liberties and law enforcement. So here is a straightforward test. If it is committed to these principles, it will strip the Association of Chief Police Officers of its powers and its funding, shut down the units it runs, and launch an inquiry into the alleged collusion between senior police officers and large corporations. Which does Cameron put first: the rule of law or corporate power? If Acpo is still operating in 2012, you’ll have your answer.

Það er löngu kominn tími til að þessi umræða fari fram hér á landi, og um leið að allt eftirlit íslensku lögreglunnar með umhverfisverndarsamtökum, mótmælendum og róttæklingum verði tekið til alvarlegrar skoðunar.

http://blog.eyjan.is/freedomfries/2011/01/21/imyndud-eco-hrydjuverkaogn-og-arasir-logreglu-a-undirstodur-lydraedisins/