Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Change Activist Stopped from Travelling to Copenhagen
Chris Kitchen held under anti-terrorist legislation • Activist planned to attend UN summit protest talks
UK border police used anti-terrorist legislation to prevent a British climate change activist from crossing over into mainland Europe where he planned to take part in events surrounding the forthcoming United Nations summit in Denmark.
Chris Kitchen, a 31-year-old office worker, said he feared his treatment by police could mark the start of a clampdown on protesters, hundreds of whom are planning to travel to Copenhagen for the climate change talks in December.
Tonight he will make a second attempt to reach Denmark, where he plans to take part in discussions organised by a network of protest groups coming together under the banner Climate Justice Action.
He said he was prevented from crossing the border yesterday at about 5pm, when the coach he was travelling on stopped at the Folkestone terminal of the Channel tunnel.
Kitchen said police officers boarded the coach and, after checking all passengers' passports, took him and another climate activist to be interviewed under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a clause which enables border officials to stop and search individuals to determine if they are connected to terrorism.
The passports were not initially scanned, Kitchen said, suggesting the officials knew his name and had planned to remove him from the coach before they boarded. During his interview, he was asked questions about his family, work and past political activity. The police also asked him what he intended to do in Copenhagen.
When Kitchen said that anti-terrorist legislation does not apply to environmental activists, he said the officer replied that terrorism "could mean a lot of things". By the time his 30-minute interview had concluded, Kitchen's coach had gone.
Police are understood to be monitoring protesters on a number of databases, some of which highlight individuals when they pass through secure areas, such as ports.
Kitchen is a prominent activist who has taken place in a number of peaceful acts of civil disobedience, such as glueing himself to a statue in parliament, to call for more action to cut carbon emissions.
"The use of anti-terrorist legislation like this is another example of political policing, of the government harassing and intimidating people practising their hard earned democratic rights," he said. "We are going to Copenhagen to take part in Climate Justice Action because we want to protest against false solutions like carbon trading and to build a global movement for effective, socially just solutions.
"People who are practising civil disobedience on climate change in the face of ineffectual government action are certainly not terrorists, and I am sure that their actions will be vindicated by history."
Kitchen said police paid for a ticket for him to return to London after questioning and arranged for the coach company to give him a seat on another coach.
A Home Office spokesman said: "There has been no change in policy. Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 enables an examining officer to stop, search and examine a person at a port or in a border area to determine whether they are someone who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
"The exercise of the powers by the police is an operational matter for each force."
28 Comments so far
Show AllClearly, the Blairites placed his name on the list, which speaks volumes to their actual position regarding the Climate Crisis--absolutely two-faced.
Yes, good point.
Yes, very good point!
It would appear as if the British Home Office equates Chris Kitchen with soccer hooligans; as both are similarly prevented from traveling by the U.K.
Do you have a cite for that? Or are you using a special definition of 'human rights campaigner', the way capitalism does when it defines democracy as capitalism and anyone opposed to capitalism to be an anti-democratic terrorist?
You're correct in your suspicions--CTZ is a proven Troll.
I wrote:
"HRW seems to be saying that Chavez has become so paranoid since the failed 2002 coup - a coup HRW does not defend! - that he's prepared to undo the good he did when he adopted a new constitution in 1999 - which he said was needed."
I should have written: "...that he's prepared to undo some, or all, of the good he did when he adopted a new constitution in 1999..."
I'm no expert on the Venezuelan constitution or on Venezuela, so how much damage Chavez is (allegedly) doing to the constitution - a constitution he is responsible for and that HRW praises - is something I cannot quantify.
Thank you. Have you checked into HRW to see whether they're truly in favor of 'human rights' as such? My sense, from reading, is that their first loyalty is to the maintenance of predatory capitalism --which suggests that 'Human Rights Watch campaigners' aren't quite the same as 'human rights campaigners'.
Zombie - maybe Chavez is doing that to keep the CIA clandestine money boys from overthrowing his legally elected government . . . .
This harrassment of activists is increasing, evidently both in Europe and the Western Hemisphere,and probably further afield in the empire of corporate finance. One of the most non-violent activists I know, an 80 year old dairy farmer from Wisconsin, had his name appear on a list of dangerous globalofobicos during the WTO meetings in Cancun, Mexico. We were all very envious he got on that exclusive list, with no more than a dozen names or so. Today the lists must be getting longer...
Anyone who was in Pittsburgh at the G-20 last month, or Miami at the FTAA protests in 2003, or New York during the Republic National Convention in 2004, knows that anti-democratic repression is on the rise in the U.S. and, taking their lead from our anti-patriotic "Patriot Act", all over the world. England is a siamese twin to the US security state, joined at the hip.
I hope they pay that English environmental activist for his ticket to Denmark tomorrow! With interest and enough extra for a nice hotel room. If they do, I will still think of England as a highly civilized place.
Do note that the UK terror law being used was enacted in 2000, well before 9/11.
"Terrorism" does "mean a lot of things", except what it was sold to us as when the Patriot Act was passed.
It is simple. The use of fear and/or violence by a person, group, or government against a person, group, or government for the purpose of coercing a person/group/government into submission to a political, social, economic, or religious agenda. It is a fair definition, and makes no distinctions. It does not allow governments to designate people as terrorists based upon ethnicity, religious persuasion, economic status, or political affiliation, but instead defines terror based solely on methods.
The fact of the matter is that, till 'terrorism' has a static and universal definition, it is a convenient tool for the marginalization and oppression/suppression of the political enemies of states and the corporations that own them. You must first have principles if you have an honest grievance or argument. Fascists are opportunists who prefer vague terms rather than clear statements of principles. I would love to see the day when consistency rules over public discourse, but when there is no agreement about language we are simply babbling nonsense and making war against rivals. We certainly are not occupying any moral high ground or being rational, much less fighting any kind of 'evil'. We are not basing our judgments against our enemies upon their actions, but are simply gnashing our teeth and using deception to demonize anyone who would want a piece of what we believe is OUR pie. Even Hitler's people would never dare to define Nazism, knowing that Nazism 'is whatever Hitler says it is today'.
As someone on CD said once, "Above all, remember this: ALL the bombs are in the hands of terrorists." (sorry I don't remember who it was)
Yes, of course, the word 'terrorism' has been used so loosely and vaguely by the elites of the Western democratic regimes that it may indeed mean not only "a lot of things," but in fact anything that happens to be politically convenient and advantageous to the interests of said elites.
When that sort of vagueness becomes acceptable in the judicial, law enforcing, and executive spheres of a society, then arbitrariness and whim rule, exactly the sort of thing one finds under totalitarian regimes.
In the U.S., "terrorists" means "Quakers", sometimes "Sisters of Mercy", that Episcopal Church in Pasadena that the IRS went after, or just ordinary antiwar placard holders that a government agency wants to spy on. Interesting to see Britain get with the program and extend it to climate change protesters. Next, school board protesters! You know, people who oppose cutting sports at the high school.
Right - the new definition of terrorist is one who attempts to change the status quo. Civil disobedience is not terrorism. Citizens have a right to petition their government to have their grievances addressed. If they refuse, those streets our OURS, not theirs.
Gordon Brown, if you read this, I'm talking to you. If Labor, your party loses the next British general election and you and Sarah have to vacate Number 10, this will be one of the reasons. Gee, how can we thank you for giving the Tories or Conservatives as they're sometimes called an easy victory in that election?
AD
It must be my "lucky day", as I got another preview message.
Gordon Brown, if you read this, I'm talking to you. If Labor, your party loses the next British general election and you and Sarah have to vacate Number 10, this will be one of the reasons. Gee, how can we thank you for giving the Tories or Conservatives as they're sometimes called an easy victory in that election?
AD
Micheal Savage, certainly an activist in his own right, was also banned from the UK. Do all of the same comments and feelings apply to his brand of activism?
Yes, if you conveniently ignore the fact that Savage is NOT a UK citizen, and was banned from ENTERING the UK.
Whereas Kitchen, who IS a UK citizen, was prevented from LEAVING the UK.
Since you support Savage's right to enter the UK, even though he is NOT a citizen, I assume you support the rights of anyone, including non-citizens, to enter the US too, at anytime they want?
It was all just an embarrassing misunderstanding..... "terra-ist" sounding so much like "terrorist", you know?
*snork* good one!
Too bad those "left-wing terrorist" t-shirts don't fit me.