Climate 9 Trial: Who Are The Real Environmental Criminals?

This photo shows the 'Climate 9' defendants holding statements of support from all over the world, after being found guilty of breach of the peace by a criminal jury for shutting down Aberdeen airport last March.

On March 3, 2009, the aviation campaigners from activist network Plane Stupid erected a makeshift golf course at Aberdeen airport in a direct action against it’s planned expansion, which was being pushed through to serve Donald Trump's planned golf and hotel complex...

Climate 9 [1] calculated that during the five-hour protest they prevented at least 107 tonnes of carbon from being emitted (enough to heat 200 Scottish homes for a month). Their action drew huge publicity to the issue of the UK aviation sector (where emissions are sky-rocketting...) and has put pressure on the government to re-examine plans for more and bigger airports all over Britain.

So what was the legal system's view of this environmental activism? And could the Cliamte 9 convince Aberdeen crown court that their actions were justified in the face of the seriousness of carbon emissions in the UK? Climate 9's Tilly Gifford explains exactly how she felt upon hearing the verdict...

Verdict in. Guilty. Freshly convicted criminals.                

Fair do's. I was there. I did do it. Never contested that. And I still stand by my actions as justified and proportionate in view of aviation's impact on our climate. 

The first 10 minutes after hearing the verdict, I was winded. I think all nine of us were. Visceral bruising. Red in the face and sick to the stomach.

We all fully intended to be arrested and prosecuted when undertaking the closing down of Aberdeen Airport in March 2009, thereby stopping further release of carbon emissions. I expected this to lead to convictions and criminal records. Ours was an informed position: the consequences of inaction loom overhead, much scarier than the consequences of the actions we undertook in March 2009.

"This is the first time in Scotland, and the first time anywhere since the failure of the Copenhagen talks, that a jury have heard climate experts testifying as to the dangers of climate change and aviation"

However, by chance, as it turned out, we were genuinely charged under the wrong laws. We broke the “Airport By Laws” indisputably. But we weren’t charged with that. We were charged with Vandalism and Breach of the Peace. We were also, unexpectedly, put before a jury; presumably the prosecution was aiming for a fiercer legal spanking.   

Voices of Dissent

The momentum of the last 15 months has woven a rich tapestry of voices of dissent: members of the UK Public Health Council, top civil rights lawyers, farmers from Climate impacted Bangladesh as well as from Scotland, fuel-poverty campaigners from Glasgow. The learning curve has been documented and diarised. It is being compiled into a resource for the next wave of climate justice actions against carbon-heavy industries (hint hint nudge nudge...)
 
During this two-week jury trial, massive stepping stones have been put in into the murky waters of shifting social values. This is the first time in Scotland, and the first time anywhere since the failure of the Copenhagen talks, that a jury have heard climate experts testifying as to the dangers of climate change and aviation.

The Legal Wet Dream

And so why the visceral ache and the choked-back tears? The reason I am gutted (and it's taken a wee while to work this out for myself) is that I think we did come genuinely close to getting acquitted. The jury took a whole four hours of deliberation. They needed to call for extra guidance. It was a majority decision, not unanimous.

"The legal system needs to speed up, to make space to handle and manage the bigger and more complex shapes that are increasingly mainstream concerns"

Had we been acquitted it would have been for technical issues: By Laws versus Breach of the Peace - technically and legally it would not have been on the grounds that climate change validates direct action. Though we’ll never know how much this taints and flavours the jurors’ opinions.

No. It's the spin opportunity, the legal wet dream, that I am gutted at coming close to. And missing.

"Climate action endorsed by the Science and by the Jury", “Court Recognises Shutting Down Airport as Legitimate Act of Self-Defence”, “Jury of Peers see Government Insufficiency and the Need for Climate Action”, “Inconvenience to Airports Negligible next to Inconvenience Climate Chaos”, and the day dreams roll on ...

There we go, cards on the table. Propaganda is my game. It’s all out. Building stories and narratives is what I am excited by. Narratives legitimised by solid science, and further vindicated by international support.

Wouldn't want 'innocent' anyway...

It does still hurt. I guess it's the familiar case of not realising how much you're wanting, yearning, for something until you're told you can't have it. It's the spin - the dissemination of victorious contagious inspiration - that I wanted. It wasn’t the acquittal itself I hungered for. To emerge sappy and smiling and pleased; police and protestors and judges all mutually congratulating each other. “Justice is Served”. Educated, well-spoken, white and acquitted - whilst prisons are currently brimming with petty criminals, largely made up of economically marginalised communities. Not to mention that the rates of re-offending in Scotland are the highest in Europe.

Who are the real criminals?

The legal system needs to speed up, to make space to handle and manage the bigger and more complex shapes that are increasingly mainstream concerns. Either the legal system updates itself, downloads the paradigm that is increasingly more popular and urgent - that climate change is anthropogenic, and that time is not on our side. If we don't aknowledge this, communities the world over will be suffering and in turn, having to take reprisal into their own hands - regardless of legal systems’ blessing or approval.

The high-emission industries have logos and are run by suit-clad men and women, with names and addresses. They must be made accountable for their companies' deeds.

Words: Tilly Gifford

Photos: Rob Logan from Plane Stupid [2]

Disclaimer: This article has been written by Tilly Gifford, and is not necessarily reflective of Ctrl.Alt.Shift and Christian Aid views.

To take action for climate justice, click here [3].

To enter our Climate Fever competition, click here [4].