Edited by author 10-27-2009 08:45 AM
I was one of the organisers of the demonstration outside Carter Ruck's offices. Here's why we did it...
Just like any company that is complicit in human rights abuse, Carter Ruck are a perfectly legitimate target for peaceful, legal, protest. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right, or OK. Anyone who chooses to collaborate in the enforcement of an unjust law, such as the current law of libel, and the dangerously unaccountable system of 'secret injunctions', in order to suppress freedom of speech, is making a moral choice. We have every right to take them to task for that choice. It just doesn't wash to seek to absolve Carter Ruck of moral responsibility simply because they are following the instructions of a client.
The idea that targetting Carter Ruck somehow lets Trafigura off the hook is simply mistaken. By drawing attention to Carter Ruck's abuse of the law, we also drew lots of attention to Trafigura's behaviour. It was a double-win. I personally doubt we'd have got that much media attention if we'd protested outside Trafigura's office.
Campaigners are duty bound to carry out their protests peacefully and (for as long as the law remains just and fair) legally. But we are under no obligation to respect the cosy gentleman's agreement that seeks to shield law firms from moral scrutiny. If Carter Ruck (or any law firm) wants to play politics, they can expect to find themselves on the receiving end of more criticism and protest.
I've written a more detailed response to Jack of Kent here:
http://richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/2...fence-of-flashmobs/
