One of the fears around post-911 anti-terrorism legislation is that it will impact significantly on the right to protest. Governments and corporations will equate protest with terrorism and use the law to stifle dissent.
Some may dismiss this fear as groundless - but it is exactly what is happening in the UK at the moment. Faced with a week long camp for climate action and protests against its expansion plans, Heathrow airport and the British Airports Authority are seeking an injunction banning any member of environmentalist organisations such as Greenpeace, the RSPB, Friends of the Earth or the National Trust - over 5 million people - from the victinity of the airport, or from transport links to the airport, including
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...
unless they give 24-hours advance notice of any protest, along with their name, vehicle license plates and addresses. The justification? Terrorism. In addition to accusing the protestors of being terrorists for wanting to speak out, BAA also claims that their presence will itself create a "terror threat":
Quoting the Metropolitan Police, Mr Lawson-Cruttenden said Heathrow was in a high state of alert and in "a very stressful situation". He told the court: "It is in everyone's interests to ensure that this protest camp, in so far as it affects Heathrow airport, is conducted in an orderly and peaceful manner."And if it isn't, the reality is that lives could be put at risk - both the lives of the protestors and the lives of other individuals using the airport."
He added that if a blockade of cars formed "they could be subject to terrorist attack". "Of course we see that in Baghdad every day," he added to some laughter in court.
So, their protest must be banned, just in case. Of course, the same logic could be applied to any public assembly or congregation of people - such as that which occurs naturally at airports - but somehow I don't think BAA would entertain the argument that their airport should be closed down because it is a potential target for terrorism.
This is an egregious attempt to stifle dissent under the cloak of protecting people from terrorism. And if it succeeds, it will do greater damage to "the British way of life" (you know, tha tthing they claim to be protecting) than any terrorist attack.
