day 7

bread not bombs / english / trial / first trial / day 7

Blind obedience is the real enemy in these "terrifying times," Stellan told the jury before they went out. "Blind obedience is what makes the production of these weapons possible."

The worst horrors in history - the Nazi death camps, the Soviet gulags, the capitalist slavery of colonialism - were not sudden things, but were planned by governments can carried out by ordinary people in blind obedience.

Here, now, it is happening again, in an undeclared war of the absolutely rich against the absolutely poor, and nuclear weapons play a central part in this crime, he said.

"On 13 September we tried to take responsibility, we tried to face up to the reality, to see the horrors of these nuclear weapons and to disarm them, to disarm the extermination tool, Trident.

"In taking that responsibility we have ended up in prison for six months, going on trial, faced with the risk of a long time in prison. We are accused of seeking attention by a trial. I am not at all happy to be here, I would rather be at home with my family. I felt forced to do this, it felt incredibly necessary."

He told the jury that the three of them had been justified in trying to damage Trident, both judicially -- under English and international law -- and morally.

"The Crown is asking you to wait another 50 years to see if we can get rid of nuclear weapons. We can't wait another 50 years, sooner or later this horrifying reality of Hiroshima will come upon us, if we don't do something.

"This is the first time the International Court of Justice ruling has been used in English law. I wish his honour the judge courage to disregard the political, economic and military pressures on him. I know a lot of courts don't have the courage to follow the letter of the law and go against the interests of the political, economic and military leaders."

The moral justification was that the law and democracy are in a process of constant change. "In the 19th century only rich men could vote, the poor and women were excluded. People's movements were mobilised against it.

"The workers' movement, the anti-slavery movement, were working in very similar ways as the peace movement today, lobbying, using the law when possible and breaking the unjust law when necessary.

"The Crown has, on all these occasions, been on the wrong side. He told the jury: "If you declare us guilty you will be criminalising our attempt to stop mass murder. By declaring us not guilty, you will give justice and peace a chance."

Ann-Britt told the jury: "It cannot be enough to write letters to MPs, to demonstrate, when it is a question of our future. My only crime is that I didn't take action sooner."

The judge then directed the jury.
Each of these defendants passionately believes that the money would be better spent on the poor of the world, he said. He quoted the verse from Isaiah which prophesies that swords shall be beaten into ploughshares.

"No doubt considerable damage could have been done to various delicate and sensitive parts of the submarine had the defendants gained access to it." Stellan had been carrying a diagram of the submarine, marked with crosses on possible targets, including the periscope, the telecommunications system and the navigation centre.

"Each defendant was offered a lifeline by the prosecution, suggesting that they were there just for publicity. Each rejected that suggestion, they said they were there to cause real damage to the vessel, it was not just a publicity stunt."

The defendants had made clear that it was to be a non-violent protest, said the judge - no one was to be hurt, no one was to resist arrest.

As a matter of law, he told the jury, "the building of this submarine at the shipyards in Barrow-in-Furness and indeed all subsequent steps leading to its being armed in Scotland with Trident missiles and its subsequent deployment on patrol are lawful under the laws of this country, which for this purpose are in accordance with international law. Accordingly there was no crime to prevent.

People cannot take the law into their own hands, he said, "otherwise, some citizens would ignore one law, some another, and all manner of chaos and disorder would result. Conduct cannot simply be dictated by the individual conscience, it is too imprecise and variable, that is why we require the law."

Possession of arms does not equal a threat to use them, he continued. The suggestion that the defence policy of this country countenances using nuclear missiles in a way contrary to international law was "fanciful".

"The deployment of nuclear missiles has frequently been sanctioned by Parliament, after full debate upon the matters. Everyone may participate in that debate by casting their votes at an election. They may seek to persuade, lobby or protest by holding and addressing peaceful meetings.

"But whether nuclear weapons are morally, socially, economically or strategically right or wrong are political questions, on which all of us are entitled to have our opinions, which may or may not coincide with the views of the defendants or the government of the day.

"For the purpose of this trial, these issues are irrelevant."
He told the jury: "You are not being asked to make a moral judgement. You are being asked to deliver a true verdict according to the facts."

The three had been mistaken in believing that Trident was a crime. Therefore the German judge's testimony was irrelevant. The defendants had no lawful excuse for what they were intending to do.

The only question remaining was whether the prosecution had proved that they had conspired to damage the submarine or other equipment in the shipyard.

----------------------------------
Andrew Hobbs (NUJ)
8 Hampton Street
Preston
Lancashire
PR2 2JL
UK

01772 721466