ALF issues in Asia

[Guest guest]

Dear colleagues,

I know I am late but I feel compelled to make

some observations regarding the AAPN debate between Jigme Gaton and Merritt

Clifton on the imprisonment of ten Austrian animal rights activists. I will

try to address my concerns one by one :

1) The Austrian issue should be a matter of concern for all of us. What is

happening in Austria may happen in Asia or India. I am attaching a message

from Ms Nandita Shah of SHARAN(Sanctuary for Health and Reconnection to

Animals and Nature) that explains why the Austrian detentions are relevant

in the Asian and Indian context.

 

2) The Austrian case is one that concerns basic human rights everywhere. I

am attaching the statement of Amnesty International on the issue.

 

3) Since I have distributed Animal Liberation Front literature and video in

India, I am intrigued by Mr Merritt Clifton's stance on the incident. He

comments: " there should be a lesson in this case, regardless of outcome:

don't go around advocating and defending anything you would not want to be

suspected of doing, whether the alleged offense is associated with activism,

illegal drugs, fornication, or flying paper airplanes in the back of the

classroom. " Since Mr Clifton is a journalist and editor, I am a bit

perplexed by what he intends to state. What exactly does Mr Clifton mean by

" don't go around advocating and defending anything you would not want to be

suspected of doing " ? There are many examples from many walks of life that

contradict this position but since Mr Clifton is a journalist, I am

providing the two most spectacular examples of journalism concerning this

and would be interested to know his opinion on whether they constitute

advocating and defending anything you would not want to be suspected of

doing.

 

i) An interview of a suicide bomber by Time Magazine journalist Aparisim

Ghosh(Link here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1077288,00.html ) Surely a

suicide bomber is much more deadly than an animal rights extremist? Does Mr

Clifton think that the journalist concerned in this case committed a wrong

by giving voice to a potential killer?

 

ii) Journalist Phil Rees's book, 'Dining With the Terrorists' in which he

outlines his experiences meeting militants in different parts of the world.(

Link here :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1509307,00.html ) What is Mr

Clifton's view on this journalist giving a platform to 'terrorists' to

speak?

 

4) Barry Horne : Mr Merritt Clifton describes Barry Horne as a " serial

arsonist. " This is a selective description for Barry Horne was an extremely

committed animal rights activist who died whilst fasting for animal rights.

Whilst it is true that he did commit illegal acts including reported cases

of arson, it is also equally true that he laid down his life for the cause

of betterment of animals. One of his notable efforts to rescue animals from

captivity was in 1988 when he tried to retrieve a dolphin named Rocky from

captivity in Marineland in Morecambe, Lancashire. His effort failed but

Rocky was eventually released in the wild in a lagoon reserve in the Turks

and Caicos islands.

A journalist should provide all sides of a story, right? Please read a

letter by Barry Horne on animal rights here :

http://www.barryhorne.org/letter.html and an appraisal of his life here :

http://web.archive.org/web/20030212174035/http://arkangelweb.org/barry/barry.sht\

ml

Barry Horne's sacrifice for animals has been dealt with elaborately by Keith

Mann in his history of the Animal Liberation Front, 'From Dusk til Dawn.' I

invite all of you to read the book and make up your own mind on Barry

Horne's activities.

Regardless of whatever one thinks of arson as a tactic in advancing a

cause, I cannot but admire the honesty of individuals who voluntarily break

the law to help animals. One such man is Rod Coronado who heads 'Operation

Bite Back' that targets animal abusing institutions. Mr Coronado has gone on

record to say, " My decision to indulge in serious criminal activity was a

conscious one that I made as an individual fully knowing that the

consequences were acceptable. " I take my hats off to such uprightness. It is

important to give voice to the perspective of law breakers to understand

what led them to break the law in the first place. Such an approach could

also be of help in understanding cases like the detention of the Austrian

activists.

 

Lastly, I want to say this. I am in regular touch with the Animal

LIberation Front and have tried to make people in India aware of their

activities. By distributing ALF material I am offering people a perspective

they might miss in the mainstream press. By reading and knowing about the

Animal Liberation Front, people will be better placed to put them in

the context of the animal rights movement, nationally and internationally. I

wonder if in Mr Merritt Clifton's opinion I am a terrorist or abetting

terrorism since I am ' advocating and defending anything you would not want

to be suspected of doing.' Would be interested to know his views on this.

I hope the detained Austrian animal rights activists get proper justice.

Best wishes and warm regards,

 

Dear Friends,

 

Perhaps you know about the violent arrests and detention of 10 Austrian

Animal Rights activists since May 21st. without reasonable grounds.

 

In recent years, milestone reforms in animal law have been achieved in

Austria including bans on fur farms, battery cages for hens and the use of

wild animals in circuses.

 

A group of International animal rights organisations are working together in

order to press for a release for these activists, and they need your

support.

 

You are invited to read more about this incident at* www.vgt.at

<http://www.vgt.at> <http://www.vgt.at/> *and to add your name as well as

that of your organisation to the attached press release to express your

concern about a serious infringement of the right of legally registered NGOs

to function freely.

 

Why is it important to endorse this press release? Because the infringement

of civil liberties taking place in Austria at the moment could spread to our

own doorsteps if we are not vigilant.

 

Please do read this urgently and if you agree to endorse it, please send a

mail to that effect to Herma Caelen <herma.caelen by *June 24

*

Should you wish to sign, she will require the following information:

 

The name of your organisation (if you are representing an organisation) or

your own name and email address

Your country

Your website address

 

(These details will be published. Please do not send information you do not

want to be distributed.)

 

Even though this alarming event is a European one, non-Europeans are urged

to support the press release.

 

 

The staff of the European Vegetarian and Animal News Agency (EVANA) will

publish the full list of endorsees on its website (http://www.evana.org) on

the afternoon of Wednesday, June 25 at the same time as the press statement

is released to the media.

Thank you for your concern and solidarity.

 

Nandita

SHARAN

 

Please pass this on to anyone that you know may be interested

 

 

 

http://www.vgt.at/presse/news/2008/news20080605_1_en.php

 

 

Vienna 5th June 2008

Statement from Amnesty International The Human Rights Organisation,

AmnestyInternational stands up for the Ten imprisoned Animal

Protectionists

 

In a two page statement the organisation describes a string of offences

against Austrian criminal law.

 

Amnesty International emphasises, once again, that political and social

activism as a freedom of expression is a protected human right.

 

The statement criticises the use of sec 278a of the criminal code for

demonstrators noting " It seems inadequate to postulate a group involved in

organised crime from a situation where a number of demonstrators arrange to

resist state authority " .

 

Amnesty International pointed out that well known environmental

organisations such as Greenpeace, for example, that might engage in actions

such as occupying an atomic power plant could be said to have committed an

offence under this law in doing so, and that as a consequence those who

donate to their organisation could be charged with financing terrorism under

criminal law.

 

It is also pointed out that the term " organised crime " is characterised by

the intent to enrich oneself and refers to the gravest crimes, for which the

intention to maximize profits is characteristic (drug trafficking and

smuggling, weapons trafficking and smuggling, theft and trafficking of

stolen art work, procuration of prostitutes, trafficking in human beings,

illegal gaming and gaming fraud, protection rackets, money laundering and so

on).

 

The appropriateness of the house searches also came under criticism, in

particular the reports that those held in custody were refused their right

to contact a lawyer of next of kin

 

Amnesty International is concerned about, and has strongly criticised the

claim from Public Prosecutor that no allegations are aimed at organisations,

whilst searches of offices rendered many organisations unable to function

due to seized technology, equipment and data

 

View a tranlation of the complete statement

below.<http://www.vgt.at/presse/news/2008/news20080605_1_en.php#statement>

 

For the orginal document in

German<http://www.vgt.at/presse/news/2008/Bilder/20080605amnestybrief.pdf>

 

 

 

 

Translation of the statement from Amnesty International:

 

(1) Amnesty International can of course make no statement with regard to

whether the accused are guilty of the criminal acts of which they are

accused (criminal damage to property, duress, menacing threat) and would

like to remind here of the presumption of innocence anchored in the European

Convention on Human Rights (Article 6 para 2) and in the Austrian Code of

Criminal Procedure (Sec 8).

 

(2) Amnesty International states here firstly that in terms of human rights

all nations have the obligation to protect people's physical integrity

property, and that freedom of opinion has its limits where others' rights

are violated. Laws protecting people's physical integrity and property thus

are valid for active members of civil society as a matter of course,

regardless of the issue they are committed to working for.

 

As an embodiment of the freedom of expression, political and social activism

– no matter for which issue – enjoys special protections only so long as it

is non-violent and respects the human rights of others. Commitment to a

cause does not justify damaging property or threatening people. Criminal

investigations or other measures taken against members of civil society are

therefore not problematic in and of themselves from the human rights

perspective.

 

(3) Amnesty International does, however, state that the case at hand

manifests concerns that our organisation previously expressed in a position

paper on the Austrian Criminal Code Reform Act (Strafrechtsänderungsgessetz)

of 2002 with regard to the criminal offences stipulated in Sec 278 et seqq.

relating to criminal associations or organisations:

 

Whilst Amnesty International recognises the necessity of amending the

Austrian Criminal Code to harmonise with the UN Convention on Transnational

Organized Crime, in our view this amendment was effected in a

disproportionate manner that exceeds the standards of the UN Convention. In

connection with the draft version of Sec 278 of the Criminal Code,

AmnestyInternational has already previously stated that although

criminal offences

such as resistance to state authority or serious damage to property are most

certainly not socially adequate behaviours in a democratic society and must

be prohibited by criminal law in any event, it seems inadequate to postulate

a group involved in organised crime from a situation where a number of

demonstrators arrange to resist state authority.

 

In our position paper on the Criminal Code Reform Act of 2002,

AmnestyInternational warned that the new catalogue of offences

relating to

organised crime and terrorism was formulated in an exaggerated manner.

Amnesty International pointed out that well-known environmental

organisations such as Greenpeace, for example, that might engage in actions

such as occupying an atomic power plant, could be said to have committed an

offence under this law in doing so, and as a consequence those who donate to

their organisation could be charged with financing terrorism under criminal

law.

 

Amnesty International points out that the term " organised crime " is

characterised by the intent to enrich oneself and refers to the gravest

crimes, for which the intention to maximise profits is characteristic (drug

trafficking and smuggling, weapons trafficking and smuggling, theft and

trafficking of stolen artwork, procuration of prostitutes, prostitution,

trafficking in human beings, illegal gaming and gaming fraud, protection

rackets, illegal dumping of dangerous materials, illegal transfer of

technology, money laundering, and terrorism; see also Article 5 (1) of the

UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime).

 

Amnesty International calls attention to the fact that intent to enrich

oneself does not exist in the case at hand. The information available to us

indicates that the Public Prosecutor also does not claim that there is such

an intent. Amnesty International is, therefore, irritated that the allegedly

specific evidence has not resulted in criminal proceedings on the grounds of

damage to property, duress or menacing threat, but that charges related to a

general crime of membership in a criminal organization, the vagueness of

which crime we perceive to be problematic, are apparently being pursued

instead.

 

(4) With respect to the house searches and seizures, Amnesty International

makes reference to the human rights imperative of appropriateness, which has

also found expression in the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure. Existing

accounts of the situation raise doubts with respect to the appropriateness

of how the house searches and arrests were made by the police. Therefore,

Amnesty International urgently recommends an independent and unbiased

investigation of these measures and expressly welcomes the initiation of

appeal procedures by defence counsel. With reference to Article 4 para 7 of

the Personal Freedoms Act (Bundesverfassungsgesetz über den Schutz der

persönlichen Freiheit, PersFrG), Amnesty International believes that

particular attention must be paid to the fact that those held in custody

have reported that the authorities have refused to allow them to contact

legal counsel.

 

Amnesty International also points out that the search warrant (which is at

our disposal) does not clearly indicate which evidence was to be secured.

The expression " electronic storage media as well as relevant documents and

objects " is very general in its wording. Amnesty International has observed

the use of such pre-written text blocks as substantiation for infringements

of fundamental freedoms in other contexts, and fears that the use of such

gives rise to doubts about how carefully the human rights boundaries are

observed in individual cases.

 

(5) Amnesty International is concerned about reports which indicate that the

extent and nature of the house searches and seizures were such as to

possibly impede the legitimate work of legal civil organisations. While the

Public Prosecutor responsible for this case stresses that the allegations of

criminal offences are not directed at any associations, the reports we have

received indicate that the seizure of materials in the associations' offices

were carried out in a manner that has left them deprived of the resources

(e.g., donor databases) they would require in order to continue working.

 

In this context, Amnesty International stresses that criminal investigations

against individuals should not be mingled with any membership in

institutions or associations of civil society that they might have. Every

effort must be made by the authorities to avoid creating the impression that

they consider it at least acceptable to have impeded the work of legal

associations.

 

(6) Amnesty International is concerned about information received from the

accused's legal counsel, according to which access to the files was limited

to an extent that specific information was not available, not even regarding

what is claimed to be the 'reasonable suspicion' (dringender Tatverdacht) or

the 'probable cause' (Haftgrund) for the arrests. Thus, the information that

is necessary for the defence of those being held and for any questioning of

their custody is being withheld from their lawyers.

 

Amnesty International points out that under Article 5 para 2 of the European

Convention on Human Rights, every person under arrest must be informed

promptly of the reasons for their arrest and of the nature of the

accusations being made against them. Pursuant to Sec 51 para 2 last sentence

of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure, following the ordering of

investigative custody, it is not permissible to restrict access to documents

that the accused requires in order to defend himself in an appeal against

the 'reasonable suspicion' held against him and the 'probable cause' being

given for his arrest.