|
Well first off. This isn't news. It was posted in a very small handful of papers, pretty much all either "Tabloid" news papers or green newspapers. Secondly They aren't using their money to bully someone, they are using their money to stop somebody from tresspassing. The restarining order they filed with the court only sought to ban her from drilling sites and access roads they own. http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/business/fractivist-barred-from-cabot-sites-1.1572181
The hospital, mechanics etc... are just her and her lawyers interpretation of the court order.
So either A) Her lawyer and her are basically making shit up to make a serial tresspasser who was endagering peoples lives look tragic. B) She can't go to those places because of the court and how the law works, not distinguishing the buisnesses from the wells on the same plots of land. Not the actual injunction filed by the company. As that would be the legal issue that caused this presumibly. It's that they've leased the Hospitals land rights for fracking and are drilling there.
Either way, it's rather hard to actually blame the company.
For the record. I'm Pro Choice. And if a protestor i agreed or disagreed with broke the law dozens of times and tresspassed when they weren't supposed to... they've quite honestly made their own bed. Otherwise the only option is they are granted free reign to harass the hell out of everybody on the excuse that if they did get any legal action taken against them it would harm them.
That's like running up and starting to hit you and telling you that you better not hit back because if you do they'd get hurt. Just because it's a big corporation being injured doesn't mean that they should be forced to take it simply because the people willfully breaking the law are smaller. |
I think you're missing my point. I'm not say she didn't trespass, nor am I contesting the simple fact that trespassers should be able to have legal action taken against them. I'm saying that it isn't trespassing to go to a supermarket who's business you aren't disrupting. If it is, then I see a serious danger to freedom of assembly. I'm not saying corporations shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves, but they have a lot more power than one person. If a 3 year old comes up to you and starts hitting you, you as a professional body builder should not hit back. Picking the toddler up and putting him somewhere where he can't reach you is one thing, but actually hurting him is another. It's completely defensible to kick a trespasser off your land, but to try to stop protesting by deeply affecting the protesters life and livelihood is corrupt. I hear you say that it's her lawyers making this interpretation, but the fact is that for the interpretation to even be possible means that the risk is real and that there's a weakness in the legal system that allows for the abuse of power. It's not abuse to tell someone disrupting your drilling business to get off the land of that business, but it is abuse to say they can't go to a hospital. Apparently they're not saying that, but legally, she can't go to that hospital, her lawyers are right (oh wait, she had no lawyers for that case). It's still an issue that needs to be taken care of. If companies can play dirty and silence protesters by barring them from needed services, what's to stop more companies from doing this? It sets a bad precedent. I'm sure you'll say this was connected to her trespassing, and not every protester trespasses, but what's to stop something similar from happening to someone who didn't trespass, and was protesting completely within the protection of the law? A restraining order could still be taken out as a strategy to make the protester give up. It wouldn't directly forbid the protests, but it would make life miserable for the protester, pressuring them into stopping. It's a corrupt strategy and should be made legally impossible to use that strategy. If trespassing is so illegal, I don't see why they need a restraining order anyway. Like you said, they could have called the cops. Not saying there shouldn't be restraining orders, just that they shouldn't be abusable. You seem to think it's her overreacting with her interpretation and she can still go to the supermarket, but as far as I can see, the interpretation is correct, and therefore abusable. Even if there is no abuse happening as you claim, the ability to abuse should be taken care of. I mean really, what's the big deal? Just say that she can use the supermarket, hospital, and all those other things that aren't drilling sites. If you restrain her from going near the sites, but still let her go to the other places, what would either side have to complain about? It seems reasonable to me. If it's just an issue of interpretation of the law, get it clarified so that it doesn't cause a problem. Not asking for the moon here.
