UK airline: Protests create an Iraqi-style terror threat

The UK airport operator BAA raised the specter of Iraqi-style terrorism at Heathrow on Aug. 2 as it sought to impose wide restrictions on the right of protesters to mount a climate change demonstration later this month. At the High Court in London, Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden, for BAA, argued that unless the protesters planning a climate camp next month were injuncted, they might blockade cars at the airport, exposing them to a terrorist strike. Quoting the Metropolitan Police, Lawson-Cruttenden said Heathrow was in a high state of alert and in "a very stressful situation." He told the court: "It is in everyone's interests to ensure that this protest camp, in so far as it affects Heathrow airport, is conducted in an orderly and peaceful manner. "And if it isn't, the reality is that lives could be put at risk -- both the lives of the protesters and the lives of other individuals using the airport." He added that if a blockade of cars formed "they could be subject to terrorist attack." "Of course we see that in Baghdad every day," he added to some laughter in court. Four protesters opposed to airport extensions are named in the injunction: Joss Garman, Leo Murray, Geraldine Nicholson and John Stewart, along with five protest groups - Plane Stupid, Hacan, Clearskies, Notrag, and Airport Watch. Airport Watch is an umbrella group supported by 10 environmental bodies including the RSPB and National Trust, leading protesters to claim that since the injunction refers to supporters or members that it could bind five million people. The Camp For Climate Action planned from 14-21 August. The protest groups allege that BAA has resorted to "legal bullying." On the second day of BAA's claim for the injunction, Nick Blake QC, for the defendants, told the hearing that current police laws adequately covered any threat to the airport's security. He told the judge Justice Swift: "The court is being asked to grant the most extraordinarily wide-ranging injunctive relief that has ever been sought from the courts of this land." There were "vast" police powers to prevent disorder and the airport was protected by both its own security, the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police, the latter two having normal powers of arrest. He said that while BAA was claiming that the protesters' plans for direct action amounted to a euphemism for illegality there were many forms of direct action that were perfectly legal such as heckling, peaceful assembly, peaceful picketing, and leafleting. He added there had been no mention of blockades by any of the protesters and no evidence of previous harassment. Martin Chamberlain, counsel for Transport for London and London Underground, told the court that Heathrow's application was neither necessary, desirable nor clear.