Guardian: Success has its own dangers, too GM trials may be under threat but democracy must not be forgotten Special report: GM debate Charles Secrett Friday September 22, 2000 Direct action protesters have never had it so good. A handful of truckers and farmers bring the country to its knees simply by standing outside Britain's oil refineries and telling tanker drivers to stay put. Then, the acquittal of the Greenpeace defendants in their GM crop- trashing case deals a knock-out blow to the government's farm testing programme. Peaceful direct action carried out by people who take responsibility for their actions must be allowed to shape what happens in a mature democracy. Britain has a long and honourable tradition of civil disobedience. Sometimes the law is an ass, and needs to be challenged outside parliament. The Greenpeace defendants belong to that tradition. I hope the oil blockaders would have had the courage to risk the high court's judgment if the police had followed usual procedure and charged them. In an age where conventional politics is as bland and flatulent as processed beans, it is not surprising that activists from all walks of life find other ways to advance their cause. This is especially true when, as in the case of fuel prices and GM crops, the government is seen as arrogant, out-of-touch and wrong. (I believe high prices on polluting fuels are right, as well as good for the economy and environment, but that's another story). I wonder when we'll see the first attacks launched against the dome? The Greenpeace ruling must worry the government on two counts. First, a jury has decided that the GM trials pose an unacceptable threat to neighbouring farms and the environment. Second, they appear to have given the green light to any sincere protester who rips up a GM crop which is about to pollinate. The defendants argued that they had a lawful reason for their actions under the Criminal Damage Act, which allows people to protect land and livelihoods from other damaging intrusions, if the court is convinced that such altruism is the genuine motive. Empirical studies have proven that GM contaminated pollen will be spread by the wind at least 4.5km beyond a pollinating crop. In Britain's crowded countryside, all GM trials thus present the same threat to neighbouring conventional and organic farmers as this site at Lyng in Norfolk. The government has only one option now - stop the field trials before more damage is done, and go back to the safety of a secure laboratory. Having been defeated on scientific, economic and moral grounds, the government has lost its one remaining legal justification. It should admit honourable defeat. What a victory that would be for the campaign against GM. But let's not get carried away. Honourable and peaceful direct action is democratic. But it is also fraught with danger and risk. For a start, it is game that anyone can play. Last week's confrontation may have been taken by desperate farmers or concerned environmentalists. This week's action may be taken by people paranoid about paedophiles, or petrol heads who don't care about the climate destabilising, health-threatening pollution they inflict on everyone else. Most liberals do not possess 44-tonne articulated lorries which they can park on top of the nation's fuel supplies. It is a fine line between legitimately challenging the state, or corporations accused of acting against the common good, and simply shoving due process and the rule of law to one side to get your own selfish way. A society in which conventional politics is seen as having little useful role holds dangers for us all. The state has many ways of fighting back against protesters, sometimes with good cause, sometimes not. Tony Blair advocates GM crops and foods. He may well decide that all prosecutions should now take place in much less sympathetic magistrates courts. We may well see Jack Straw using his exciting new anti-terrorism powers to target crop trashers, or spy on established campaigning organisations. The other danger posed by direct action is that such actions are difficult to control. Public sympathy for the cause withers in the face of aggression. The state introduces more restrictive laws and tougher policing. Democracy narrows, and the rights of active, aware citizens are curtailed. Mr Straw's anti-terrorist legislation is a case in point. Partly in response to the May Day riot, it has been deliberately drafted loosely. Now the Home Office has more powers to limit the legitimate activities of awkward pressure groups. Information is power. The first responsibility of pressure groups is to present the facts and arguments for ordinary citizens. Next, we can create opportunities for constituents or taxpayers, shareholders or consumers, to challenge governments and corporations. This type of citizen action works, as Monsanto found to its cost. And, by using due process, it strengthens not weakens democracy. Charles Secrett is director of Friends of the Earth. _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
