Women's Views on News |
| Barton Moss slow walk cases dropped Posted: 10 May 2016 01:39 PM PDT
The final three cases of the hundreds of charges brought by the Crown in relation to the Barton Moss anti-fracking protests of 2013 and 2014 were heard at Manchester Magistrates Court on 27 April 2016 – and the judge delivered not guilty verdicts on the charges of aggravated trespass. An overwhelming number of the charges relating to those protests were either dropped or quashed, and there is a growing call for a public inquiry into the policing and cost of the response to the Salford protests. Women campaigners at Barton Moss in Salford told researchers they were groped and threatened by Greater Manchester Police officers. And Barbara Keeley, MP for Worsley and Eccles South, has questioned the scale and cost of police force used at Barton Moss protest, saying: "The scale and cost of the police force being used at the protest at Barton Moss is an issue for tax-payers and I will continue to ask the question as to why the Chief Constable thinks that a force of this size is needed." As the Salford Star reported, this last case concerned Annabel Newfield, Stephen Jefferies and Laura Parkes. They had participated in a 'slow walk' demonstration on 18 February 2014 at the IGas exploratory drilling site in Salford, and were pulled from the crowd and arrested. The judge was shown footage, taken by both the police and an anti-fracking livestreamer, heard evidence from police officers present at the time and concluded that the prosecution case "contradicted the evidence" before him. The 50-page 'Keep Moving Report on the policing of the Barton Moss community protection camp’ by researchers at Liverpool John Moores and York Universities examined the operation by Greater Manchester Police at Barton Moss. "The dubious legality under which arrests were carried out, evidenced by the readiness of the courts to challenge their legal basis, raises important questions about the extent to which the policing operation was driven by interests other than public order and crime prevention." The report also said mass arrest was a central part of the police operation. "The tactic served to physically clear protesters from the site, to deter others from attending the camp and to reinforce the construction of protesters as violent criminals and thereby legitimise the intensity of the policing operation." Speaking outside the court after being not guilty, Stephen Jefferies said: "I'm pleased, but it's tinged with a bit of annoyance that it's actually taken this long, especially with the money it's cost. It seems to me that there wasn't much of a case against us, as was shown today. "But they still relentlessly pursued it at public expense." "I think when David Cameron says that no expense will be spared in the pursuit of fracking, this is what he means, that he will pursue every single protester and take them through court to try and scare them off from doing it again." This issue was raised in the statement by Maina Kiai, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur, on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association at the conclusion of his recent visit to the United Kingdom. Kiai spoke of a number of specific areas of concern, which, he said, will be covered more comprehensively in his report to the Human Rights Council in June 2017: ‘In a number of instances, he said, the police have continued to use force against protestors in an excessive manner. ‘The Greater Manchester Police, for example, reportedly took violent action against anti-fracking protestors at the Barton Moss Camp from November 2013 to April 2014. ‘The College of Policing's code of ethics, a laudable initiative which refers to the use of force, among other principles and standards of professional behaviour for the police, should be abided by. ‘I further urge them to read the joint report I presented to the UN Human Rights Council last month with Christof Heyns, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. ‘The report, which is a compilation of practical recommendations for the proper management of assemblies, contains a number of recommendations that are of particular relevance to this situation. ‘I note with satisfaction that the protest liaison officers' programme has been instrumental in ensuring the smooth running of many protests. ‘There is indeed great value in ensuring open and conducive dialogue between protestors and the police. ‘I remain concerned, however, about striking a balance between these liaison functions and the officers' duty to gather intelligence on protests, which if not carefully managed, may erode trust. ‘My attention was also drawn to the alleged collusion between law enforcement authorities and private companies in the context of protests against businesses. ‘I was informed that protesters have been arrested, forced to provide their names and addresses, and then found their names as targets of injunctions by the companies against further protest activity. This was for instance the case in relation to the "no dash for gas" protest at a gas power station in 2014 and at some anti-fracking protests. ‘I find this alleged practice troubling, and fail to see its legal justification. ‘I also heard allegations that the police have continued to resort on several occasions to mass arrests and stop and search powers in the context of protests, most notably anti-fracking demonstrations, with a view to gathering intelligence on protestors. ‘I want to underscore the chilling effect of such practice among protestors.’ Annabel Newfield, the Salford Star reported, said: "It's been two years and three months since we were arrested at Barton Moss and it just seems so ridiculous that we even got arrested in the first place." "I'm incredibly happy with this verdict, which is a just verdict, because we didn't do anything wrong," she said. "We just exercised our peaceful right to protest."  |
| Sign up for marriage equality in NI Posted: 10 May 2016 06:39 AM PDT
The Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont has now voted on the issue of marriage equality 5 times. All 5 of those motions were blocked by the Democratic Unionist Party [DUP] through their use of a parliamentary veto called the "petition of concern". Under the complex rules of power sharing in Northern Ireland, parties from either the unionist or nationalist community can use this veto if they feel there is not enough backing from Protestants or Catholics for some particular legislation. It was designed to ensure no one community dominated the other following the 1998 Belfast agreement. This mechanism established to ensure the rights of minorities in Northern Ireland is being continually abused to deny a fundamental right to the LGBT community and, because of this, Northern Ireland is lagging behind the rest of Western Europe in adopting a fairer, more equal and more forward thinking approach to human rights. Four previous motions failed to reach a majority in favour of Marriage Equality. However, even if any of these motions did achieve a majority in favour, the DUP had already implemented the petition of concern prior to each vote to ensure the result was a foregone conclusion. This was also the case with vote 5 in November 2015, but on this occasion the mechanism was officially enacted to veto a majority of politicians who voted 'AYE' in favour of the legislation. Four independent unionist assembly members joined nationalists and others with 53 votes in favour of marriage equality – one vote ahead of the remaining unionists and independents opposed to any reform. A narrow majority but a majority all the same. The party known as the "Democratic" Unionist Party (DUP) thwarted a democratic vote and derailed equality by using the mechanism unfairly on this issue and it seems most people are not happy about this. Numerous surveys have shown that a majority of people in NI are now in favour of marriage equality. In November 2015 a poll jointly commissioned by BBC Northern Ireland and Irish broadcaster RTÉ, revealed that 64 per cent of people support equal marriage in Northern Ireland while just 23 per cent opposed it. Over 2000 people were surveyed for the cross-borders research, carried out by the polling company B&A. Not far off the landslide 62 per cent YES vote in Ireland's marriage equality referendum last year. In June 2015 an Ipsos MORI survey interviewed a representative sample of 1,000 adults aged 16+ from across Northern Ireland. The interviews were conducted face-to-face between 20 May and 8 June 2015 with data weighted to match the profile of the population. The results showed that 68 per cent of those surveyed supported marriage equality. The figure rises to 82 per cent among 16-34 year-olds and 75 per cent support among 35-54 year-olds, but falls to 47 per cent among those aged 55 and over. In 2005 UK government actuaries suggested 6 per cent – 1 in 16.66 – of the population, or about 3.6 million citizens, are either gay or lesbian. The Treasury calculated this estimate when analysing the financial implications of the Civil Partnerships Act. The figures were based on the 2000 National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL), which asked respondents about sexual attitudes and behaviours, but not orientation, and on comparable research from Europe and America. In a study examining the responses of 7,441 individuals, conducted by the Economic and Social Research Institute in Ireland, found that 2.7 per cent of men and 1.2 per cent of women self-identified as homosexual or bisexual. A question based on a variant of the Kinsey scale found that 5.3 per cent of men and 5.8 per cent of women reported some same-sex attraction. Of those surveyed, 7.1 per cent of men and 4.7 per cent of women reported a homosexual experience some time in their life so far. In reality however this has less to do with numbers and more to do with human beings with feelings and without access to an equal definition and commitment to love. Most of us will know someone who is gay. This issue is not just about our friends, family, acquaintances, colleagues and neighbours. It is about standing up for basic human rights. The DUP have to stop differentiating peoples' rights under the law according to their sexuality. It's simple genetics. It would be absurd to say blonde people couldn't marry. We'll give them blond partnerships. Blond people could ruin the sanctity of marriage. The DUP should step up on this issue and show NI is about equality and unity. The negative narrative has clearly has now so evidently isolated us in Western Europe. The love between same sex and opposite sex couples is the same. Why can't their love be recognised in the same way? Love is love regardless of gender and hair colour. This shouldn't be an issue of gay rights, blond rights, transgender rights or Christian rights. This is about human rights and the equal recognition of love under the law. It has already been established that any marriage equality legislation will grant religious organisations protections so that they will not have to officiate same sex ceremonies. This means there is no threat to the religious interpretation and view that marriage should remain as between a man and a woman. It's just not right that in a democratic society everyone should be forced to think that way. The only people truly affected by this legislation would be those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. Sign this petition to voice your opposition to the DUP's abuse of the petition of concern and to petition OFMDFM to agree not to use such a veto on what is evidently a human rights and equality issue. As first minister and leader of the DUP, Arlene Foster has the power to bring Northern Ireland into the 21st century and alter the perception that her party is trapped in the past. The last thing Northern Ireland needs for its image right now is the perception that it is "on the wrong side of history." Please sign your name here and stand up for human rights.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |