Domestic Extremist

For those of you who have been kettled, spied-on, beaten-up or impregnated this won’t come as a massive shock, but for the rest of you maybe it has. The recent expose of Police Scotland defining peaceful protestors defending communities against fracking as ‘domestic extremists’ might need some unpacking.

 

Fracking campaigners ‘not extremists’, says Sturgeon

 

The roots of this outrage are many – but we should note three: first the (little noticed) conflation of independence supporting voters with ISIS (Separatists and Extremists) at the last General Election, second the long-standing attacks on environmental protestors in the USA and the militarisation of the police (see Barbarism in Dakota) which is part of a wider pattern in western societies, third the criminalisation of legitimate protest and the new surveillance tools being used against peaceful protesters in England.

Joey Mahmoud, executive vice president of Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the Dakota Pipeline which will carry North Dakota oil to an Illinois terminal said the protest movement “induced individuals to break into and shut down pump stations on four operational pipelines. Had these actions been undertaken by foreign nationals, they could only be described as acts of terrorism.”

As Patrick Harvie of the Greens has put it:

“People who have been peacefully protesting for their own communities not to be put in danger by fracking tycoons have also been dubbed extremists. Let me say unequivocally, anti-fracking campaigners who exercise their democratic right to protest are heroes, no matter what Police Scotland thinks of them. Issues of justice are devolved and ministers in Scotland are responsible for overseeing policing in our country. All this begs the question of when ministers, including the First Minister, knew that Police Scotland tarred our activists with such a disgusting slur.”

The Ferret report that Detective Chief Superintendent, Gerry Mclean wrote to the Scottish Parliament saying:

“The Police Scotland Annual Police Plan for 2017-18 did contain the following commentary: ‘There continues to be protests around shale oil and gas extraction and unconventional oil and gas extraction, and unconventional oil and gas extraction, both commonly referred to as ‘fracking’.’

“This paragraph was contained within a wider and diverse section of the annual police plan under the heading of Domestic Extremism.”

“Police Scotland does not consider any form of lawful and peaceful protest to constitute domestic extremism; however, we accept that from a presentational perspective a misinterpretation of this position may have been given from the way this small section of the annual police plan was worded and presented.

“No such reference is contained in the current Annual Police Plan for 2018-19.”

But the idea that such attitudes or such strategic views are wished away with a bit of PR editing is unconvincing. We need a public inquiry into SpyCops in Scotland and we need public control over the police handling of peaceful protest.

This has been a strategic part of British policing for a decade, it’s not some clerical error, or typo.

We don’t even know what ‘domestic extremism’ really means.

The Guardian reported in 2009 that there was no official or legal definition of domestic extremism.

However, they report that a “vague stab” at a working definition by senior officers is that domestic extremists are individuals or groups “that carry out criminal acts of direct action in furtherance of a campaign. These people and activities usually seek to prevent something from happening or to change legislation or domestic policy, but attempt to do so outside of the normal democratic process.” The same article quotes activists criticising this definition as too loose, worded to give “police the licence to carry out widespread surveillance of whole organisations that are a legitimate part of the democratic process.”

The Independent described the definition as “a label for radical environmental activism – a sort of terrorism-lite.” It quoted David Howarth, a former Liberal Democrats MP and law professor, who opposed what he saw as “an astonishing conflation of legitimate protest with terrorism”.

Comments (5)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Joe says:

    Just finished reading “Undercover: the true story of Britain’s secret police”. Its very well written by a couple of investigative journalists from the Guardian, Rob Evans and Paul Lewis. It’s a real eyeopener and I’m sure will be something most Bella readers would find very interesting.

  2. Willie says:

    And meanwhile our out of control police and security services allow the holocaust corporate corruption to run rampant.

    Corporate scandal after scandal where the ordinary people lose their jobs and pensions whilst the fat cats plunder is the UK reality. And for anyone who becomes a real thorn in the side of the big boys club, there are other options as anyone who knows the mysterious circumstances of the death of Willie McRae will tell.

    Princess Diana too, or Dr David Kelly, Robin Cook, or the goings on in Northern Ireland. Do folks really have any idea what is going on and what real control the establishment has.

    Maybe a read of the previously redacted books by Brigadier General Sir Frank Kitson would help assist.

  3. SleepingDog says:

    One might think the never-ending drive to exploit fossil fuels for never-enough profit in the face of planetary despoilation was a bit extreme. Beyond that, is it extreme to terrorize small children and their friends with the prospect of everlasting hellish torture for sins that are not even crimes; or threaten subjects with life imprisonment for just talking about having a republic; or calling for dropping bombs on civilians of other countries for obscure reasons; or aiming nuclear weapons at dense population centres around the world?

    Of course they cannot come up with a definition of “extremism”, it would ensnare the establishment who are the greatest committers of misdeeds. Just as they fight tooth and nail to expunge all state terrorism from official definitions of “terrorism”.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

  4. Wul says:

    Define “Domestic Extremism” ?

    That’s a hard one.

    What about withdrawing an unemployed person’s only source of cash, thus starving them and their kids, because of a missed ( & pointless) appointment at a job centre?

    Would that qualify? It seems both “domestic” and “extreme”

    Alternatively, perhaps deliberately importing a known jihadi into our domestic, civilian environment? Would that work?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/31/navy-rescued-manchester-bomber-salman-abedi-war-torn-libya-three/

Keep our Journalism Independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address to subscribe for free here and receive Bella direct to your inbox.

 
Bella Caledonia