[tag]Oxford University[/tag] was granted most of the extension to its [tag]injunction[/tag] against [tag]animal rights[/tag] protestors on Friday.
The actual order [pdf] – held under seal until yesterday, but which I noticed had been pinned to the tree where the lawful protest is allowed to gather on Saturday – restricts the protestors from effectively even entering the city except between 1pm and 5pm on Thursdays and once a month on Saturday for a peaceful protest. It also bans glaxons and other amplified noise equipment.
However the University was not granted its request to reduce the number of permitted protestors from 50 to 12 at the spot over the road and off to the right of the animal housing centre that is the focus of the debate.
Most significant though is the decision to produce a very wide category of “protected person” which contains basically all members of the university and all the people working for the contractors on the building. Protestors are not allowed within 100 yards of the residence of any protected person – and this effectively means they can’t come into central Oxford because the university owns so many of the buildings.
Despite many people’s fears- including the local MP [tag]Evan Harris[/tag] – that the injunction is overly restrictive and an unnecessary clampdown on free speech, the group behind the protest, [tag]Speak[/tag], characteristically claimed the injunction was a “defeat” for the University.
As usual, there was also a media conspiracy (“it seems that the only thing you need to claim a victory these days is to have the media on your side”), but the claimed defeat doesn’t extend very far. “Despite putting on a brave face, Oxford University officials must be very disappointed with the new injunction they were awarded in the High Court today. One might even hazard a guess that there may be some in their camp wondering quite why they even bothered, given that the order handed down today bears a striking resemblance to that granted to the university in November 2004.”
Which is, in fact, entirely untrue because the injunction gives the University exactly what it wants: all possible powers to prevent intimidation of workers at the site and protection of students currently going through their finals.
Speaking for the university, Dr Julie Maxton, Registrar, said: “Today’s judgement represents a significant advance for the cause of legitimate and essential scientific research at Oxford University. We all have the right to work and study in a safe and peaceful environment, free from threat, intimidation and disruption. That right is what the court has acknowledged today.
“This ruling extends legal protection from such unlawful behaviour to a wider range of people. It also offers a welcome measure of relief to many members of the University who have been subjected to unjustifiable harassment and distress.”
That harassment will continue on Saturday – the same day as the Pro-Test march will go through the centre of Oxford – when Speak will protest outside the buildings that it says house the workers for the site, at The Fire Service College in Moreton in Marsh, which is about 30 miles north-west of Oxford.
Speak has posted a typically emotive and childish call to arms on its website concerning the planned protest: “At the end of a day after building a monument to cruelty and a fraudulent scientific practice, they are able to relax and enjoy themselves – accommodation comprises of en-suite facilities, colour TV’s and tea and coffee making facilities. Do they give a moment’s thought for the animals that will die in their thousands, imprisoned in tiny cages? Alone they will suffer: in fear they will die – do they care? Of course not; they are on triple wages. Why should they give a moment to think about the sentient creatures destined to die inside a facility they are building?”
Last weekend, a group of about 30 protestors met up at the outskirts of the Oxford, and walked to St Giles near the centre of town, as well as hassled MP Evan Harris who has openly spoken out in support of the lab.
As a personal observation, made clear from one or two of my own biased comments above, I have grown increasingly of the view that Speak has virtually lost its legitimacy as a protesting group. There appears to be very little substance in its allegations, it relies on unthinking and emotive language to rally support, it fails to engage in proper debate, and as support for it has ebbed and turned into virtual hostility by the residents of Oxford, it has turned inward, relying on the aggressive oratory of a single man – Mel Broughton – and feeding off the buzz of intimidation.
As much as I hate to agree with any restrictions on free speech, I find myself agreeing with the restrictions put on the group. Speak still has the rights to a weekly protest at the site and a monthly opportunity to walk through the streets of Oxford. Good. It’s probably more that they deserve.
