I have always been cautious about campaigns that make use of the legal system to promote social justice. Some activists resort to the courts too quickly, incurring huge costs for a struggle that could have been fought more effectively through political lobbying, media engagement or even direct action.
But I was delighted with the news this week that the government faced a legal challenge over its use of the Royal Bank of Scotland's investments (see http://www.wdm.org.uk/news/RBSlegalchallenge30062009.htm [1]). This is not only because I think it might work, and gain public support following the banking crisis, but also for two more personal reasons.
Firstly, one of the groups bringing the action is People & Planet, an excellent student campaigning network. I was at their summer gathering to deliver media training when the story hit the headlines on Tuesday morning.
Secondly, the legal challenge takes the form of a judicial review. This is the same process that was used by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House in 2007-08 after the government pressurised the Serious Fraud Office into dropping a criminal investigation into BAE Systems' Saudi arms deals. I was privileged to be on the CAAT staff at the time and to play a part in that case.
That experience made me more confident that legal action can be a part of a successful campaign. Like other campaigning methods, it should be used with caution. When the High Court ruled in CAAT's favour, I saw the difference that such a ruling could make. When the Lords overturned this decision, I realised that although we had lost legally, we had in many ways won politically – in terms of wider public understanding, the effect on the government and the Saudi regime and a significant shift in the balance of the debate.
Activism is not about a choice between “respectable” methods (such as legal action) and “radical” ones (such as direct action). It is about doing what is most effective while behaving in an ethical way. I feel privileged to have worked with both CAAT and People & Planet because both groups combine strong principles with effective methods. It's sadly a rare combination.
[12]This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales
License [12].
Although the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Ekklesia, the article may reflect Ekklesia's values. If you use Ekklesia's news briefings please consider making a donation to sponsor Ekklesia's work here [13]. Links:
[1] http://www.wdm.org.uk/news/RBSlegalchallenge30062009.htm
[2] http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9783;title=Speaking Truth to Power in the courts
[3] http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9783&title=Speaking Truth to Power in the courts
[4] http://tailrank.com/share/?link_href=http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9783&title=Speaking Truth to Power in the courts
[5] http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9783;title=Speaking Truth to Power in the courts
[6] http://www.newsvine.com/_wine/save?u=http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9783&h=Speaking Truth to Power in the courts
[7] http://view.nowpublic.com/?src=http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9783
[8] http://www.technorati.com/search/http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9783
[9] http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9783&title=Speaking Truth to Power in the courts
[10] http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9783
[11] https://twitter.com/share
[12] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/
[13] http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/about/donate