Aviation: The Threat – to whom?

So as the hour approaches when the Climate Camp takes over Heathrow’s terminals, a little bit of thought and a large amount of anger. First of two postings on the subject.

I’m angry at the Climate Change Camp. Now this may come as no surprise to those of you who know that I’m pro-aviation and pro-airport expansion. No, this particular anger is directed at the liars, hypocrites and other assorted evils who have organised the camp. When BAA tried to get an injunction against a large number of organisations – one move which I will admit was “plane stupid” on their part, and somewhat counter productive – the press was full of commentary on the issues at hand. Many, many members of the organisations that BAA was trying to stop from getting to close to the terminals and other facilities appeared in a constant stream on TV saying how BAA was trying to “curb [their] freedoms” and “reduce [their] of speech and expression”. The usual things the people say when someone is trying to shut them down – and to be fair, I’m all for freedom of speech: I might not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it. One caveat: as long as you do it legally.

These protesters arrived last Sunday at Imperial College’s playing fields and decided to squat on it. Illegally. Now, this simply isn’t on – you can’t trespass on land and claim it as your own. Its 1800s a number of European nations did that, and now we realise it might not have been the cleverest thing to do. So taking this on board, and noting that they (the protesters) are on land that isn’t there, and claiming anyone can have access, so they are doing as much, what do you think they do when journalists want to go onto the land? They ban them. They frogmarch them off, they are rude, insulting and down-right dangerous to them, saying they aren’t allowed onto the land. How exactly does that work? What mentality is that? It seems for the protesters, there are two sets of rules – one for them, one for everyone else.

Next up it is the protesters contempt for the Police. Heathrow is a security target. Every person in Britain can’t deny that Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group would have the press day of their dreams if they staged an attack on such a prominent and important British target. Now the protesters have chosen to set up camp very close to the airport, and as has been shown before (cf. G8 at Gleneagles, May Day protests in London, etc.), they aren’t exactly the most law abiding bunch in the world. Nor do they know exactly who’s entering the site of theirs – just look the part, be anti-aviation/anti-capitalist or the like and you are in. So how easy would it be for any terrorist to slip in and cause havoc? Of course the police are right to invoke the Terrorism Act to stop and search vehicles and people. Can you imagine the field day the press and public would have if something happened and they hadn’t done the appropriate checks.

And then comes the “peaceful protests”. Only one word springs to mind: lies. Or liars. The day of the court injunction, BBC London News interviewed someone from Plane Stupid outside court and asked if they would be able to promise that no disruption would be caused to the public – they couldn’t make that promise. They couldn’t even promise that they’d be peaceful. We know Plane Stupid like to break the law – they invaded the secure area at Nottingham East Midlands Airport earlier this year, and broke countless laws. This week they’ve already caused public order offences, and trespass at three private facilities in and around the London area. You can’t trust them as far as you can throw them.

No one is doubting the evidence of Climate Change. Its been proven in countless reports that the CO2 produced by aviation is smaller than that of many heavy industries and many of the UK’s diesel trains on some routes. But, the methodology taken by the protesters behaviour is entirely unacceptable. Any breaking of the laws in such a sensitive area should be dealt with harshly and most severely. Disrupting the public, causing possible security threats and upsetting law abiding citizens is one thing; protesting peacefully is another. It seems these protesters don’t know the difference.