Independent UK: The flight from democracy (Heathrow Airport "row")

[marmar]

Leading Article: The flight from democracy
Published: 28 July 2007

The attempt by BAA to disrupt and undermine opposition to the expansion of Heathrow airport is a clear affront to the democratic right to peaceful protest. As we reported yesterday, the airport operator is seeking an injunction against next month's Camp for Climate Action protest at Heathrow airport. It proposes to throw out an outrageously large protective bubble around the airport that would cover not just the terminal buildings and runways, but also London Underground's Piccadilly line, which runs to Heathrow, parts of the mainline rail network and sections of the M25 and M4.

It is breathtakingly sweeping also in the number of groups it wants to be permitted to target. On the list are not just anti-Heathrow noise and expansion groups but 15 environmental bodies, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Woodland Trust. If this injunction is granted, the members of these organisations could find themselves arrested by the police for merely travelling in the direction of the airport without having given prior notice of their intention to protest. And then there are the restrictions on those who do give notice and are allowed to gather at three sanctioned protest points far from the airport. They will have to supply their names and car registration number plates. Megaphones will be banned.

It is perfectly clear what is going on here. While claiming to support the right of campaigners to protest, BAA is attempting to use the law to harass any opposition into giving up and to prevent them from lobbying travellers directly. This is thoroughly undemocratic; the injunction must be thrown out. But the sad truth is that BAA is merely taking its lead from the Government, which over the past seven years has steadily eroded the right to protest, abusing the powers granted to the police and the executive under successive anti-terror and crime laws. If the Government can use the excuse of security to stifle legitimate protest, why should a wealthy corporation such as BAA not do the same?

Gordon Brown has indicated that the provisions of the 2005 Serious Organised Crime Act that banned unauthorised protests within 1km of Parliament are likely to be dropped. The Prime Minister should also scrap the rest of the restrictions on free speech introduced by his predecessor - and in so doing send a message to corporations such as BAA that they do not have a right to silence voices they do not wish to hear.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2811632.ece