The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Could I please unsubsribe from this list. I didn't join it to have to witness the sort of embittered ranting which gets organisations like ours a bad name, as indeed does a petty act of vandalism. Though I understand the frustration which might lead a person to throw paint at a public building, I fail to see what it achieved other than to further discredit the name of people who oppose the sanctions against Iraq peacefully and legally. As the daughter of a former prisoner of conscience, I find it just a little offensive that these people are being made to sound like prisoners of conscience when, though they acted in good faith, they committed a pointless crime which has done nothing to alleviate the sufferings of the Iraqi people. Unlike the people of Iraq, they had the freedom to make their protests in a dignified and constructive manner without fear of arrest and torture. We must oppose the illegal vandalism being done to Iraq but not by becoming criminals ourselves. F Sultana. On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, J. Vernon wrote: > >...the causing of criminal damage to Her Majesty's buildings. > > This, of course, is the kind of thing that policemen say in court. We > don't need lawyers to use the same hyperbolic language. We're talking > about some red paint splashed on a wall, for god's sake. > > > As a citizen, I object to people causing disgraceful acts of vandalism.. > > As a law student, I object to people deciding that they can break the > > law whenever they choose. > > As a citizen, Alan could vent more of his anger on the illegal vandalism > of Iraq. As a lawyer, he ought to know that the law changes from week to > week - there is nothing permanent about it, and it certainly doesn't > require our respectful awe. > > > It is nonsense to say that the individuals concerned risk six months in > > prison... Even if they are jailed, it will be for a very short period. > > People can go to jail for far less than criminal damage. Alan should spend > 'a very short period' in jail and then testify to its democratic > character. > > > Thank God they are facing a fair trial in open court.. > > I agree that this trial probably will be a small affair, but Alan should > not make too many assumptions about British Justice in general; Birmingham > 6, Winchester 3, Guiildford 4, Casemount 6... > > Lawyers tend to come from the class of people who never sit on the wrong > side of a magistrate's bench. Consequently, they believe the ideal picture > described in their textbooks. Alan might be less enthusiastic if he'd ever > tried to defend himself, with no legal training and no legal aid, in front > of a vicious stipe who believes everything the police say. > > > The judge cannot but do his duty and convict these people. > > Thank you, Judge Bates. It's comforting to know that we needn't listen to > any evidence. > > > J Vernon > > (Not speaking for CASI or Milan Rai) > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. > To be removed/added, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk, NOT the > whole list. Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To be removed/added, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk, NOT the whole list. Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html