GM CROP PULLERS SURGE 7: The Victorious Finale and the whole story
Report by Rowan Tilly (one of the defendants)
13 June 2001
1) The final episode: GM crops destroyed in champagne spraying
2) GM crop pullers please note ”¦.
3) Some important learnings from this action.
4) Background to the action: Who? What? Where? When?
5) Full details of each episode since the action
6) Future's statement (extracts)
7) Evidence appended to Future's statement
8) Protesters "trampled crop in GM maize demo". Press Association News
9) Magistrates acquit GM crop protesters. John Vidal Wednesday June 13, 2001 The Guardian
10) Comment from George Monbiot in The Guardian 28 September 2000 (extract)
11) A big heartfelt thankyou to ”¦
12) For further information
1) SUMMARY OF LATEST EPISODE:
GM crops destroyed in champagne spraying
GM maize was proven to be unable to withstand spraying by champagne and the elation of seven jubilant GM crop pullers celebrating their court victory yesterday (12 June 2001). This was the first victory for GM crop pullers in a magistrates court. The seven defendants were Chris Black, David Cooper, Simon Fairlie, Judie Holme, Jack Hooker, Rowan Tilly, Mike Zair. They held a press conference at a GM farmscale trial site just outside Weymouth to signal that there is more GM crop decontamination work to be done and the resistance continues. Their supporters confirmed this message by immediately rolling up their sleeves to the task of literally pulling up the GM maize plants, still only a few inches tall. The GriM Reaper, who had attended the original action, showed up again and, since the plants were too small for his sythe, he submitted to the champagne and posed for the press.
Champagne and GM crop pulling was an entirely appropriate way to conclude a long legal battle in which no stone was left unturned. The trial opened at Weymouth Magistrates' Court on Monday 11 June with the prosecution's case describing the events of 16 July (see section 4). The seven defendants had originally been charged with criminal damage but this was later changed to aggravated trespass in an effort to keep them out of a jury trial. In police interviews all seven of the defendants had claimed responsibility for destroying GM maize and most had said they were acting to prevent GM pollution in the public interest. One had temporarily adopted the name "For the Future" - acting in solidarity with people of the future who's possible existence is threatened now by GM crops. Her prepared statement (see section 6) explaining her actions was played in court along with the litany of 27 titles, scientific papers appended to the statement (see section 7). The thick bundle of scientific papers was handed to the magistrate District Judge Paul Farmer as evidence at the scene of the crime (Whose crime? Their crime!).
Barrister Anya Lewes opened the defence with the claim that the prosecutions' case must fall. She persisted with the same argument as had already failed three times (first in Rowan Tilly's previous GM crop pulling conviction and again in her Crown Court appeal) but most recently during an earlier Tribunal in which the seven defendants had claimed there had been an "abuse of process" after their charges had been changed (see section 5.7). She argued that the charge of aggravated trespass under the notorious Criminal Justice Act did not hold up since it is a public order offence and yet no public order confrontation had taken place. Her argument was backed up with contributions from Barrister Quincy Whittaker.
Meanwhile outside the court supporters had done truly fantastic work. They provided a refuge from the court in the form of "The Support Mobile", a Mongolian yurt erected on public land immediately outside the court. It was fantastic to have this sanctuary from the court, a place to sleep at night and it was a wonderful and highly visible focal point for local people to find out what was going on. The police turned up at one point unperturbed but simply warned the residents to watch out for local vandals. The press loved it.
The following day Judge Farmer read out his ruling on the defence's legal argument. One of the defendants was poised ready to begin testifying in the witness box, expecting another failure of this legal argument when the barrister turned round to spell out the victorious news.
The defendants were amazed, overjoyed and excited by the result. Their efforts had paid off with double success. They had already exposed the fact that the Senior Prosecution had been anxious she would not get a conviction and had sought advice from the Prosecution of the Greenpeace case which was acquitted. Now finally they have been vindicated that they did not commit a public order offence. They damaged GM crops in an effort to prevent GM pollution for which they had a clear public interest defence.
2) GM CROP PULLERS PLEASE NOTE
This still does not create a legal precedent that gives us a green light on the legal front. Although our position is considerably improved, GM crop pulling remains on the edge of legality. Defendant Rowan Tilly is appealing a previous GM crop pulling conviction of aggravated trespass at the High Court. If she wins this will set a legal precedent making it impossible to use the charge of aggravated trespass on GM crop pullers (unless there is a worker present at the time of the action). This latest court victory will be a helpful reference point in support of the legal argument in the High Court.
Please invite me if you want help with pulling up GM crops - I have no trial site of my own !
3) SOME IMPORTANT LEARNINGS FROM THIS ACTION
- Whether you want to take responsibility for your action or you intend to avoid arrest. If you are arrested provide a verifiable name, address (and date of birth if you want to be released quickly) but answer no other questions. In your recorded interview either (a) read out a statement you already prepared in advance explaining your actions and answer "no comment" to ALL other questions; or (b) answer "no comment" to ALL questions.
- Take evidence of GM pollution with you on actions, in the form of briefings and papers (see Future's list ”¦.. for examples).
- If you refuse your real name and details you will be held in custody. "Future" did this on purpose partly in hope of exercising some control over what she thought was an inevitable prison sentence since she had no intention of paying any fines. She wanted to do her time at her convenience straight after the action, rather than at some point down the line as dictated by the courts. However, she was eventually identified and tricked into confirming her identity.
- If organising a crop pulling action, PLEASE provide a verbal and written legal briefing (contact me for details). If your action is covert - do a covert briefing, if it is a public action - do a public briefing. If you don't there will inevitably be some enthusiastic but unprepared and possibly vulnerable people who will have a hard time. - Preparation for an action and support afterwards are absolutely invaluable. Solidarity - in the form of nonviolent direct action - is a fantastic and inspirational bonus!
4) BACKGROUND TO THE ACTION: WHO? WHAT? WHERE? WHEN?
The SURGE 7 are the seven defendants (Chris Black, David Cooper, Simon Fairlie, Judie Holme, Jack Hooker, Rowan Tilly, Mike Zair) charged for nonviolently pulling up GM maize from a government farm-scale trial site at Over Compton, Dorset in the UK last July.
The day began with a public rally organised by the Southern Union of Resistance to Genetic Engineering (SURGE) attended by about 300 people. Speakers included local people and a local bee keeper. One speaker in favour of GM was a GriM Reaper who congratulated biotech corporations for sowing death in the fields. The procession to the farm-scale trial of GM maize was led by three GriM Reapers who said that after hearing the speeches they now feared that the biotech companies are making a take-over bid for death by using GM and that Aventis might even try to patent death pushing them out of their age-old traditional domain.
About a hundred people joined in with pulling up about 15% of the GM maize watched by a handful of police and many supporters. The police moved in after 45 minutes. The GriM Reapers were amongst the seven who were arrested (great photos available of this). Most of those charged had intended to take responsibility for their actions. One calling herself "for the future" refused to give her details to the police. "Future" gave a full statement (see below for extracts) in solidarity with future generations who do not have a voice in the present. She was charged with criminal damage and held for 36 hours until identified via her finger-prints whereupon she was ejected. The other six arrested were released promptly on police bail to consider the evidence pending possible charges and were subsequently charged with criminal damage in August.
5) FULL DETAILS OF EACH EPISODE
5.1) First Hearing on 20 July 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court This hearing was for Rowan Tilly since all other defendants had not yet been charged. Her Solicitor asked for an adjournment pending possible charges of other defendants but was refused. It was cancelled whilst she was on her way to Weymouth Magistrates Court from Brighton.
5.2) Second Hearing on 18 August 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court
All seven defendants present, a further six defendants having been charged with criminal damage earlier in the week were expected to have met with a solicitor and decided on how to plead by the end of the week. Needless to say they were unable to come to a decision and the hearing was adjourned. The Prosecution told the Defence Barrister that the court fully intended to keep the trial in a Magistrates Court "to prevent them from using the court as a mouth-piece".
5.3) Third Hearing on 1 September 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court
At the second hearing the defendants produced evidence from two experts: Dr. Sue Mayer and Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher showing that the value of the damage was either millions of pounds or uncertain. The prosecution was granted their request for time to think this one over.
5.4) Fourth Hearing on 18 September 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court
The prosecution announced their withdrawal of charges of criminal damage and are now charging the defendants with aggravated trespass - which must be tried in a Magistrates Court. In other words, they realised they could well lose the battle over the value of damages so they have backed off and adopted an easier line of attack. This travesty of justice was objected by the Defence as an abuse of process. Another hearing is needed to hear the Defence's challenge. All seven defendants made their plea of "not guilty".
5.5) Fifth Hearing on 20 October 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court
The Prosecution were late in coming up with responses to the Defence's challenge. Hence the Defence had not had time to call all the necessary witnesses. The Magistrate ruled that a Tribunal should be held to assess the possibility of abuse of process and a Pre-Trial Review will be needed to work out the details. Meanwhile the Magistrate was not willing to proceed with a Pre-Trial Review for a trial on the aggravated trespass charges until the question over the abuse of process has been settled.
If the Abuse of Process challenge is successful then the Magistrate would probably throw out the whole case. If we lose, then the case proceeds with a Magistrates Court Trial for aggravated trespass.
5.6) Sixth Hearing on 10 November 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court
Pre-Trial Review in preparation for a Tribunal on abuse of process. This hearing was largely administrative faff. About half the defendants were prevented from attending by transport failures caused by climate change. (Some defendants had already warned the courts about the impending impact of climate change caused by cars years ago but were ignored and convicted - WE TOLD YOU SO !).
5.7) Seventh Hearing on 16 February 2001 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court
On 16 February 2001 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court the struggle for a jury trial culminated in a Tribunal to test the charge of abuse of process made by the seven defendants. They argued that changing their charges to aggravated trespass, which must be tried by a Magistrate, was an abuse of process. The Tribunal lasted a full day in which, bizarrely, Crown Prosecution Service representatives were cross-examined in the witness box by Defence Barrister Anya Lewis and defendants Simon Fairlie and Mike Zair conducted their own defence, or in this case, acted as The Peoples' Prosecutors of the prosecution !
The defence called Defence Barrister Boyle who reported that Prosecutor Upton had said that the Crown intended to keep the defendants out of a jury trial in order to prevent us from using the court as a mouthpiece. Then Prosecutor Upton was called, who had no memory of Boyle's allegation.
During two hours of questioning Senior Crown Prosecutor Julia Woodward said she foresaw major difficulties in clinching a conviction against the crop pullers. The Defence's expert evidence findings on the damage to the GM crops pointed to a jury trial. She couldn't determine the value of the crop since it clearly had no commercial value which raised the possibility that there was no determinable loss. She claimed that the evidence suggested that it would be difficult to prove there had been any damage. However, when it was pointed out to her that every defendant had clearly explained how much GM crop they had pulled up she relented. It was revealed that she took advice from the Prosecutor who had lost his case in the Greenpeace trial in Norwich and who advised her to change the charges to aggravated trespass. She had also noted defendant Rowan Tilly's previous conviction of aggravated trespass for pulling up GM crops. She eventually said that it was easy to look back with hindsight and conceded that she would look at the case very differently now.
Defence Barrister Anya Lewis objected to the change of their charges to aggravated trespass which must be tried by a Magistrate and which curtails their public interest defence for openly pulling up GM crops.
Simon Fairlie drew the Magistrates' attention to the extraordinary number of hearings for this case at great cost with very little progress to be seen.
The case was adjourned at 5.30pm.
5.8) Eighth Hearing on 21 February 2001 at Winbourne Magistrates' Court
The verdict on the "abuse of process" Tribunal.
The Stipendiary Magistrate ruled that, although there clearly had been prejudice against the seven defendants, this was not sufficient to reach the high standards of the test of abuse of process. However, he did say that he could see no reason why a common law defence of necessity should not be allowed. Past experience has shown repeatedly that Magistrates ignore such defences and will only consider statutory defences of "lawful excuse", as used in previous genetiX trials. The fact that this Magistrate has clearly said a necessity defence should be allowed may help. However, this Magistrate will not preside over the trial.
The case will now proceed to trial at Weymouth Magistrates Court and the charges of aggravated trespass will remain.
The defendants were pleased with the proceedings since the Tribunal has made public that the Prosecution were prejudiced and prepared to use manipulation in order to get a conviction.
6) FUTURE'S STATEMENT (extracts)
Extracts from the statement made by "Future" for her action to remove GM crops in July 2000 at Over Compton, Dorset. In solidarity with future generations who do not have a voice in the present, she refused to give her details to the police, calling herself "for the future". She read out her statement in her police interview. She is one of seven who have been charged with criminal damage. Future's full statement is available.
"Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and the daughters
Of life's longing for itself.
They come through you,
But they are not from you,
And though they are with you,
They belong not to you.
You can give them your love,
But not your thoughts.
They have their own thoughts.
They have their own thoughts.
You can house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in a place of tomorrow,
Which you cannot visit,
Not even in your dreams.
You can strive to be like them,
But you cannot make them just like you.
Strive to be like them,
But you cannot make them just like you."
Song by Sweet Honey in the Rock based on prose by Kahil Gibran
Rachel Carson was the first person I ever heard of who blew the whistle on impending environmental disaster. Karen Silkwood and Judi Bari were both murdered for their part in sounding the alarm. These people acted as custodians of the Earth and held the future for us to inherit. Now it is our turn. We can honour the memory of our ancestors and their good work by holding the future for our children. We are already passing on a legacy of nuclear waste and toxic pollutants. Now we are adding a living, self-replicating pollution in the form of genetically modified (GM) crops, which threatens to close the doors of choice for future generations for ever. We will never be free of the possibility of genetic engineering now that it has been invented. We cannot know what people of the future will do about genetic engineering, whether they will uphold the choices we make. Our responsibility is to choose wisely now and give them the possibility to make a wise choice for the future of their children.
It is clear to me that GM crops and products represent a real and terrible danger to our health, the environment, to the way our society operates, now, and even more so in the future.
At the end of this statement I have listed and attached twenty seven articles and briefings which give background information, including scientific papers, which back up my beliefs that the GM maize I will be pulling up on 16 July 2000 is a danger to public health and the environment and is illegal.
In the last four years I have campaigned against GM crops, products and the patenting of life - human body parts, animals and plants. I have participated in a total of six actions to decontaminate GM releases.
On Sunday 16 July 2000 I will be pulling up as many GM maize plants as possible in the hours of daylight from the farmscale trial site at Silverlake Farm near Over Compton. I will not engage in physical violence or knowingly take part in any action that will cause harm. I will try to create an atmosphere of calm and will treat anyone I encounter with respect. These methods are consistent with my vision of a society which is founded on democracy, social justice and peace. My witness is an active expression of nonviolence: anything which damages the Earth or her inhabitants, disgraces our ancestors or threatens future generations, is inherently violent and should not exist as "property". The safe removal of GM crops is a legitimate step towards preventing the immediate danger from these products in our midst which threaten our health and natural ecology wherever they are grown.
I take full responsibility for my action. In solidarity with the nameless children of the future, whose possible existence on Earth becomes increasingly uncertain, I will not give my name or address. In being anonymous myself, for a short time, I hope to offer up a challenge for us all to take account of beings in the future who have no voice here in the present. We must listen to what they might say about GM crops here and now threatening their future. They have rights too and by applying the precautionary principle we can give them a voice on the current dangers of GM crops which will change their world for ever, irreversibly. We can protect the integrity and sacredness of life we inherited from our ancestors - so much more than a DNA code - and pass it on to our children in hope that they too will cherish it.
For Grace, Harriet and the children of the future.
Signed: for the future
Date: 15 July 2000
7) EVIDENCE APPENDED TO FUTURE'S STATEMENT
Twenty seven articles and briefings which give background information explaining my beliefs that the GM maize I intend to pull up on 16 July is a danger to public health and is illegal.
Women's Environmental Network: The Gene Files Resource and Action Pack containing:
1) Dr. R. A. Steinbrecher: What is Genetic Engineering? March 2000.
2) Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher and Viola Sampson: Gene Foods. May 1999.
3) Dr. Douda Bensasson: Genetic Pollution I (through pollen, seeds, roots, shoots, suckers, runners). December 1999.
4) Dr. Douda Bensasson: Genetic Pollution II (through horizontal gene transfer). March 2000.
5) Helena Paul, Viola Sampson and Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher: The Patenting of Life. March 2000.
6) Dr. R. A. Steinbrecher, V. Sampson, B.Sc., R. Tilly, B.Sc., R. Harbinson, BA.: Gene Tech Trees. November 1999.
7) Viola Sampson, B.Sc., Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher: The Giant Green Salmon ”¦and other cautionary tales. Selected case studies illustrating the inherent uncertainties and unpredictability of genetic engineering. March 2000.
8) Jules Pretty: Feeding the World? September 1998.
9) Rural Advancement Foundation International: Out of Control.
10) Ricarda A. Steinbrecher and Pat Mooney: Terminator Technology: The threat to world food security. The Ecologist. October 1998.
11) Joyce D'Silva: Genetic Engineering and the Threat to Farm Animals. Earthscan Publications, 1999.
12) David Tilman: The greening of the green revolution. Nature, November 1998.
13) Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher: What is Wrong with Nature? Resurgence, 1998.
14) The Corner House: Food? Health? Hope? Genetic Engineering and World Hunger. October 1998.
15) Dr. Ricarda A. Steinbrecher. Affidavit, June 2000.
16) Paul Johnston, Ruth Stringer, David Santillo and Charles Vyvyan Howard: Hazard, Exposure and Ecological Risk Assessment. From B. Nath, L. Hens, P. Compton and D. Devuyst: Environmental Management in Practice Volume I: Instruments for Environmental Management. Routledge, 1998.
17) Dr. C. V. Howard: Expert evidence re: R v Jacqueline Sheedy and Elizabeth Snook. March 1999.
18) Dr. Susan Mayer: Expert witness statement. March 1999.
19) Prof. Brian Goodwin: Expert report on horizontal gene transfer, March, 1999.
20) Dr. Jean Emberlin, Beverley Adams-Groom B.Sc. and Julie Tidmarsh, B.Sc., National Pollen Research Unit, University College, Worcester: The Dispersal of Maize Pollen Zea mays. A report based on evidence available from publications and internet sites. January 1999.
21) Norman Baker MP with Paul Tyler MP and Colin Breed MP: Genetic Manipulation: The Hidden Revolution. Liberal democrat discussion paper, October 1999.
22) Walter Doerfler, Rainer Schubbert, Hilde Heller, Christina Kammer, Kristina Hilger-Eversheim, Margit Knoblauch and Ralph Remus: Integration of foreign DNA and its consequences in mammalian systems. Trends in Biotechnology, August 1997 (Vol 15).
23) Frank Gebhard and Kornelia Smalla: Transformation of Acinetobacter sp. Strain BD413 by Transgenic Sugar Beet DNA. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, April 1998.
24) Friends of the Earth: Application for Consent to Release GMO crop plants in accordance with the Simplified Procedure. Release No: 96/R13/6 Sharpes International Seeds Ltd, Glufosinate Tolerant Maize. June 1998.
25) Rural Advancement Foundation International: AgBiotech's Five Jumbo Gene Giants. January 2000.
26) Jules Pretty: Feeding the World: sustainable agriculture and genetic modification. ActionAid, March 2000.
27) Greenpeace: GM on trial. Scientific evidence presented in defence of 28 Greenpeace volunteers on trial for their non-violent removal of a GM maize crop.
8) PROTESTERS 'TRAMPLED CROP IN GM MAIZE DEMO' Martin Halfpenny, PA News, 11 June 2001
Environmental protesters, some dressed as grim reapers, cut down and trampled on genetically modified maize during a protest about Government trials of the crop, a court was told today.
Protesters invaded a 33-acre field at Tolbridge Farm near Sherborne, Dorset, on July 16 last year. Seven defendants - Christopher Black, 45, David Cooper, 37, Simon Fairlie, 50, Jacob Hooker, 25, Julie Horn, 37, Rowan Tilly, 43, and Michael Zair, 58 - were among those who started to destroy the crops, belonging to Aventis, magistrates at Weymouth were told. The GM maize was planted in half a field and was five feet high when the attack took place. The protesters, some wearing white protective suits and others dressed as the grim reaper, started to destroy the crop in front of police, the court heard. The magistrates were shown a police video recording of protesters in the field. Camera operator Pc Phillip Dennis said: "At the far side the people were in the field and plants were flying up in the air. They were gradually working their way down towards my location."
About a third of the crop was damaged in the non-violent protest. The court was told that the seven defendants had told police during interviews that they were in the field, and said they were protesting about the use of genetically modified maize, which they considered dangerous. Farmer Brian Lock, the field's owner, said the crop was sown by him for Aventis - half the field was GM maize and the other half was conventional maize. Aventis product development manager Judith Jordan said the GM crop was part of a trial to test its herbicide resistance. It was one of 13 trials last year and a further 28 this year. The court also a taped police interview in which Tilly said she had damaged crops in the field because they were illegal and she feared they would contaminate other crops. She had taken part in six other actions to "decontaminate" other crop trials in Britain, she said. She accused the trials of producing "a virtual nature" and designer food which could self-replicate. "The big problem of our age is now the contamination of man's environment with substances that have incredible scope for harm," she told officers. "We will never be free of genetic engineering. Our responsibility is to choose wisely now and to make the choices for our children. "The damage to the earth disgraces our ancestors."
At the time of the interview Tilly called herself For The Future. In the statement read out to the police she called for a five year moratorium on the question of GM crops.
Cooper, Fairlie, and Zair, of Tinkers Bubble, Stoke sub Hamdon, Somerset, who are organic farmers; Tilly, of Tichborne Street, Brighton, East Sussex; Horn, of Lower Pertwood Farm, Salisbury, Wiltshire; Hooker, of Furnham Road, Chard, Somerset; and Black, of Higher Rockes Farm, Butleigh, Glastonbury, Somerset, all deny aggravated trespass.
9) MAGISTRATES ACQUIT GM CROP PROTESTERS
John Vidal Wednesday June 13, 2001 The Guardian
Seven protesters who dressed as grim reapers and cut down and trampled on a genetically modified maize crop in a protest over government trials were acquitted yesterday by Weymouth magistrates of aggravated trespass.
It is thought to be the first time that magistrates rather than a jury have acquitted GM protesters. Since the Greenpeace trial when Lord Melchett and 18 others were acquitted, there has been official concern that juries are more likely to take the protesters' side.
On hearing the news, several local people visited another GM field near Weymouth and started to pull the crop down. No one was arrested. The GM maize was 5ft high when the seven defendants and about 90 others invaded a 33 acre field at Tolbridge Farm near Sherborne, Dorset, on July 16 last year.
Christopher Black, 45, David Cooper, 37, Simon Fairlie, 50, Jacob Hooker, 25, Julie Horn, 37, Rowan Tilly, 43, and Michael Zair, 58, were among those who started to destroy the crops, belonging to Aventis, in front of police, the court was told.
Magistrates were shown a police video of protesters in the field.
About a third of the crop was damaged in the non-violent protest. The court was told that the seven defendants had told police during interviews that they were in the field, and said they were protesting about the use of genetically modified maize, which they considered dangerous.
Aventis product development manager Judith Jordan had told the court that the GM crop was part of a trial to test its herbicide resistance. The case collapsed after arguments that the charge of aggravated trespass did not stand up.
10) COMMENT FROM GEORGE MONBIOT IN THE GUARDIAN, 28 September 2000 (extract)
As the Human Rights Act looms into view, the government is beginning to panic. Concerned that juries are using their moral judgment to interpret the law, it seems to be doing all it can to shore up Britain's oppressive legal system. Protesters arrested for destroying a GM crop in Dorset this summer complain about what they perceive as overt political interference in the judicial process. While they were to have been tried for criminal damage, which would have brought them before a jury, the crown prosecution service has reduced the charges to aggravated trespass, which will be heard in a magistrates' court. The defendants are pressing for more serious charges, while the prosecution is arguing for leniency.
Jack Straw's attempts to limit trial by jury, which the Lords will start re-examining this week, are beginning to look less like a plan to save money and more like an effort to keep sensitive cases out of the hands of ordinary men and women, who might be moved to agree with the legal arguments raised against the excessive powers of the state and the corporations. This is not, after all, how the legal system is supposed to work. But these are desperate, rearguard actions to defend a system which is becoming ever less capable of resisting democratic challenges.
The next few months could, as a result, prove to be among the most exciting periods ever in British politics, as the weight of the law is turned against the very systems it was established to defend. Thanks to the challenges presented by a tiny number of courageous people, Britain may never be the same again. © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2000
11) A BIG HEARTFELT THANKYOU TO ”¦
- those who helped organise the original action at breakneck speed!
- those not arrested who helped to decontaminate the GM crop;
- those who gave their support outside and inside the court, organised the Support Mobile AND those who supported the supporters to give their time;
- those behind the scenes supporters who held us on course when we were wobbling;
- those who expressed their solidarity by continuing the resistance in the GM fields after the trial;
- our expert witnesses Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, Dr. Sue Mayer and Dr. Jean Emberlin who worked so hard to give us evidence of GM pollution (their Expert Affadavits from previous court cases got in to this one through the back door via Future's 27 papers!);
- those who offered food and hospitality;
- those who gave us dosh ££££ to make it all possible;
- the legal team: Barristers Anya Lewis and Quincy Whittaker and Solicitor Mike Schwarz of Bindmans, for sheer persistance, determination and especially for sensitivity to our expression of "matters beyond the legal".
”¦. Si se puede !!!!
12) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
"Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it." Brecht