JUST STOP OIL WANTS UN TO DEFEND RIGHTS
Claim anti-protest law breaks convention
ENVIRONMENTAL activists from Just Stop Oil are calling on the United Nations to back their “human right to protest”.
The group’s 22-year-old “poster girl”, Phoebe Plummer, faces the first trial under the new UK Section 7 law in May.
Rules mean convicted protesters can be jailed for up to a year, fined or both for interfering with “the use or operation of key national infrastructure”.
But Just Stop Oil claims the legislation is in breach of UN convention and Plummer has urged fellow activists to sign a complaint to Michel Forst, a human rights advisor to the body.
She said: “Charged under sec 7 of the public order act? People who have been are putting in a complaint to the UN!
“Sec 7 is a new law disproportionately restricting our human right to protest, and there is a strong case that this places the UK in breach of UN conventions.
“This has to be done very quickly as myself and 2 others will be starting the first sec 7 trial in less than 2 months!
Adding your name could be a huge help in your defence when you go to trial.”
Police have been using the new law since last year. It is part of a wider European crackdown on climate protests, in which France and Germany have taken an anti-terror approach to some demos.
On October 30, some 65 Just Stop Oil activists were held after slow-marching in Parliament Square against new oil and gas projects. Activists will cite the UN’s Aarhus Convention, which we signed up to in 2001 and grants rights in relation to the environment, including “public participation and access to justice”.
But its legal force here is unclear as it is not incorporated in UK law.
Mr Forst, UN Special Rapporteur for Environmental Defenders, has expressed concern over “regressive” new laws. He
said in January: “Prior to these developments, it had been almost unheard of since the 1930s for the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK.”
The Home Office said: “The right to protest is a fundamental part of democracy but must be balanced with protecting the law-abiding majority’s right to go about their lives, free from disruption.”