hypocrisy,dishonesty,injustice - collections.mun.cacollections.mun.ca/PDFs/radical/IndecencyinChurch.pdf · case began, eight of the ... tremendous evil of the napalm bomb and war

hypocrisy, dishonesty, injusticeat brighton

WHAT HAPPENED AT BRIGHTONOn Sunday 2nd October, 1966 the Labour Party held a special pre-conf'erenceservice in the Dorset Gardens M~thodist Church at Brighton. Printed invitationcards had been sent out announC1.ng that George Brown snd Harold Wilaon wouldread the lessons. Regular me~b~rs of the congregation w~re asked to sit in thebalcony where press and telev1s10n cameras were already 1nstalled, and the great~:i~;;~~s~f those who packed into the main body of the church were Labour Party

George Brown mounted the rostrum to read Micah 4 including - "Nationshall not lift sword against nation - neither shall they learn warany more." Harold Wilson followed him to read Matthew 1 including_"By their fruits shall ye know them."

A number of people roseto their feet and spoke in protest againat t hebJpocrlsyof politicians who in the garb of Christian respectability could utter words ofpeace and universal brotherhood, while continuing to support the American warof atrocity and genocide in Viet-Ham.

Several of the interrupters were set upon by inf'uriated delegates, others wereremoved by the police. Nine people were taken to the police station where theywere charged between 5 and 9 hours later with riotous behaviour in church. Someof them were also charged with obstruction, insulting words and threateningbehaviour. The following day they were taken in handcuffs to Brighton MagiatmteeCourt, where, without hearing any evidence, the Magistrate, HerbertRipper, gavean order for them to be fingerprinted and photographed and remanded them in CUI!-

;~;~ ~~~c~~~/~:~;ve~h~~~mw~~et~~~~. to object to this imprisonment~ trial

Three days later, after application had been made to a High Court Judge, theywere released on bail. On the following Monday, the police asked for a furtheradjournment in order to consult the Director of Public Proaecutiona with a viewto bringing charges of conspiracy, and on October 31st, a few minutes before thecase began, eight of the defendants were further charged with being concernedwith each other in indecent behaviour in Church.

Throughout the hearing, which lasted 1 days, the sincerity of the accused wasnot in question. It was made clear that the prosecution was being brought bythe police because the Minister in Charge had refused to prefer any charges, andit was generally agreed that the only violence that took place was that used tosilence and eject the demonstrators. Lord Soper giving evidence for the defenoesaid that impropriety was not necessarily an evil thing in the presence of thetremendous evil of the napalm bomb and war in the world. He said that to des­cribe ,he actions of the accused as indecent was a falsificlltion of the facts,and expressed the view that they had probably done more good than harm.

~~lt~ed;~:~d~~~:m~:~~ ~~~~;to~i:~~e~~eb:~~~~::e,H:~~~:8:~x~~~::,t~::Abrahams, Derek Russell, Bernard Miles, Andy Anderson, Heather Russell and MegWalsh, the maximum fine of £5: and two of them, Nicolas Walter and Jim Radford,the maximum prison sentence of two months.

~~~~iSo~o:sp~~nr~~sl~~t~n~e~g:~~s~r~~n~c~~~~~:~~ngN~~O~~;e;;l~~rt~:sH~~child;"'n, Jim Radford has three. They both have good jobs which they may loseif they go to prison.

AN OPEN LETTER TO HERBERT RIPPER,CHAIRMAN OF BRIGHTON MAGISTRATES.

~s~~~/~;e~~~~c;~~hbe~;~~~'; ~~:; ~:~~~:' /~~ ~:o:~~~S;~:~i~:~hC~~:Jurisdiction Act of 1860.

~i~tso~u~i~~e~::~~t::~ :~ :~~s~o~~~n=~;~e ~~:~e~t::~ ~;~~~nS~~:~Church to speak on behalf of the burnt and mutilated people ?fViet-Nam. Wehad asked those we had just heard praying for the Queen, forM1ffistersofthe

E~l¥~:~Jf~~%~~~r~~~idt:~~~~~~;~~·,of us to prison for two months.

lI'eareenteringanappeal against this conviction on a point of law and youhave been asked to "state a case" to the Queen's Bench Division of the HighCourt. Since you have no legal qualifications, it is generally understoodthat the written argument you will now put forward as your justification forconvicting us, will have been prepared either completely by, or with the con­siderable assistance of, your Chief Clerk, who is of course a solicitor.

This legal argument will centre on the narrow question of the legal definitionof indecency. Even if this were not sub judice, we would not be interested indiscussing the question with you. It is quite obvious that our values andpriorities differ widely. We believe, however, that your verdict and yoursentences were manifestly absurd and unjust for a number of other reasons, andsincethesemattersarequiteseparatefromthegroundsofappeal,wedonotsee why our views should not be openly expressed.

We realize that it is unusual for those convictedbyllagistratesCourtstopublicly question or criticize the Magistrate who sentenced them. Unusualbehaviour is not necessarily wrong or ill advised however, as we endeavouredto make clear during the 7 days we spent in your court. In our view the publichave a right to ask Magistrates to explain and justify their decisions, justas they have a right to call politicians to account. We intend to exercisethat right.

WE WOULD LIKE SOME ANSWERS HERBERT

There are a number of questiona we wish to ask you. Some of them we have al­readyaskedrepeatedlyfromthedock,anduntiltheyhavebeenansweredyourimpartiality must remain in doubt. When we first appeared in your court on

~~~~E~~t[:~~~~il!~~~~f~~t~~~~~~~t~

ARE THE BRIGHTON POLICE ALWAYS LIKE THIS 1

Why did you fail to investigate or comment in any way, on the complaints madeby several of us, that we were being treated violently by P.C.335 on that oc­casion? If you yourself were unable to see that some of us were being kickedand punched down the stairs leadiQg from the dock, you must have heard theshouted protests. Everyoneelseincourtdid,andtheywerereported1.nmostnational newspapers. Why did you not have those concerned brought back intocourt to see if they were marked or bruised?

A woman in the public gallery, from where it!!J!.!!. possible to see whst wss hap­pening on the stairs, also protested at the violence to which we werebeingsubjected. Why did you not question this woman instead of having her removedfrom the court? Do you invariably assume that complaints against the policeare unjustified? If this is not the case, what possible excuse can you havefor failing to inquire into the matter?

In your brief summing up, what you omitted to say was more revealing than whatyou did say! The inaccuracy and inconsistency of the police evidence had beenone of the most remarkable features of the hearing. Two experienced officers,Detective Inspector Field and Detective Sergeant Osborne, had enteredthewit­ncss box to tell stories completely at variance with the facts established byother prosecution witnesses. They had contradicted each other sndthe evidenceof Detective Sergesnt Osborne was proved to be untrue beyond sny doubt orquestion, when after stating, inhisevidenceinchief,andthenmaintaining

~~~o:~~:~i~e~:~~~~~~e:~a;~:~~~:p~st~:~h:r~~c~~m:~~~~ ~~;~~yt:~~~::outside the church with Walter. He had already confirmed the evidence of otherpolicewitnesses-thatNicolasWalterhadleftthecnurchimmediately afterhis intervention at the end of George Brown's lesson!

You ignored this completely. WHY? This was not a trivislmstter. Ithsdbeenconclusively demonstrsted thst a police officer under osth was not telling thetruth. Why did you fail to utter one word of concern or regret? Is this socommon an occurrence in your court that it csnpsss without mention? Ordoyouconsiderthattheveracityorotherwiseof~witnessesneednotcon­

cern you? Both Derek and Heather Russell had insisted throughout the hesringthst they did not shout at the rostrum, although they supported those who did.Det.Sgt.Osbornewastheonlyprosecutionwitnesstogiveevidencesgainstthemin this respect. Why did you convict these two people on the evidence of sucha thoroughly discredited witness?

ONE LAW FOR HAROLD 1

Why did you not reply to our several protests at not being granted witnesssummonses for Mr. Wilson and his family and for Margaret Herbison, the Ministerof Pensions? As a Magistrate you are well awsre that it is your duty to issuea witness sum:nonsifyoubelieve that the witness in question can give msterislevidence in the case, and if it can be shownthathewillnotcomevoluntarily.You knew that photographs showing these people in close proximityto demon­strators,andlettersfromthemrefusingtoattendcourt,hadbeenproducedtoyour colleague Mr. Pascoe, and your Clerk, Mr. Tritschler. Almost every otherwitness agreed that these Ministers and their relations were ideally situatedto see exactly what took place. They were of course, the only people presentwhose names and addresses we knew,and whose evidence we were sure you wouldaccept. Witness summonses for two other ordinary people were granted-wh;r

WE TOLD YOU ABOUT 'INDECENCY' IN VIET-NAM

:~et~~~e;:p~~~~t~~ ;~~: ~:r;~~~~~t s:~~~~id~~~\;:~~r;::: ~~ug~~~r:~~~antwhat a child looks like if it survives a napalm attack, when he quoted ReneCutforth, an eye witness to this horror-

"In front of us a curious figure was standing, a little crouched,legestraddled,armsoutstretchedfromhissides. Hehadnoeyeeandhisbody,mostofwhichwasvisiblethroughtattersofburntrags,wascoveredwithahardblackcrustspeckledwithyellowpus •••••• Theinterpretersaid"Hehastostand,cannotsit or lie". He had to stand-because his body was no longerCQveredwithaskinbutwithacrustlikecracklingwhichbroke easily."

You heard from Jim Radford,that there are thousands of such childreninViet­Nam. He told you that 250,000 Viet-Namese had been killed in less than 2tyears. He read the New York Times report of October 3rd 1965, which statedthat110,000civilianshadbeenslaughtered,800,000peopletortured,500burnt alive, 100,000 poisoned by chemical weapons, and unknown numbers dis­embowelled,castrated,raped,andeviscerated. We told you that these thingswere happening NOW, not as the result of accident or neglect, but as thecertainandpredictableeffectofactionsandpolicies,whichWilson and Brownin the name of the British Government: inourname,haveexpressedtheirsup­port for. NO ONE CONTRADICTED USl Noone came forward to explain that we weremistaken. No one disputed the facts that had moved us to protest.

You will remember that JimRadfordalao tried to explain to you how i twaspossible for an apparently civilized nation like Germany, to relapse intobarbarism in less than a generation. It happened because the world is full

~]i~i~~1~~~i~:~~~~~~~~:~;~~~~~~~1::'

We referred you to the United Nations Charter and the Declaration of HumanRights. We reminded you of the Nuremberg indictments, when few people in thiscO\l.'1try questioned the passionate contention of the allied prosecutor, thatman b.as higher duties tb.an those he owes to national laws. We pointed out toyou the absurdity of bringing charges under the antiquated EcclesiasticalCourts Jurisdiction Act, when the best known precedent for denouncing politi­cal hypocrisy in cb.urch was that set by the alleged foundsr of the Christisnreligion - one Jesus Christ (described in Matthew 23). Ws called that eminsnt~ethodist, Lord Soper who told you that interruptions in church were in thebest traditions of Methodism, and who ridiculed the suggestion that ourbe;,aviour was in any way indecent.

DISHONEST OR INCOMPETENT?

You were being invited to show that the law is not a blind and stupid ass.You were in a position to show that humanity and moral sense are essentialcomponents of justice. How did you rise to the occasion? How did youindicateyour appreciation of the concern that motivated us? How did you display yourobjectivity? You pronounced us all guilty of indecent behaviour: You imposedthe maximum fine on six of us and the maximum prison sentence on two:

These two had not been revealed as ringleaders. It had not been shown, oreven suggested, that they created a greater disturbance than anyone else. Onthe contrary, it had been positively established that Nicolas Walter's inter­ventionhadbeenquiteseparate,muchshorterandhadcausedlessupsetthananyone else's. No doubt it would be improper to suggest that these two menwere sentenced to prison, not because of the evidence against them but becauseof their bearing in court. However, it was plain to see throughout the hearlngthat you regarded them with particular antagonism. In a fantastic attempt toprovide some kind of rationale for this blatant discrimination, you assertedthat both men had stated their determination to continue in their course ofbreaking the law. Even your Chief Clerk looked startled at this statement,since it was completely untrue. Neither of them had expressed any suchdetermination. Sue Abrahams had declared her determination and defiance ina vehement closing speech, but"";;"f course it was Jim Radford and Nicolas Walteryou wanted to send to jail. Either you were completely muddled and could notremember who had said what, or you are guilty of deliberately re-arrangingthe facts to make them support the sentences you wished to inflict.

THE VIEW FROM THE DOCK

Wi til what weighty measured words did you announce your ludicrous decision andvicious sentences? We heard from your lips the dreariest selection of mean­ingless cliches and non sequiturs ever to be liftedfromthelJagistrate'shandbook of hackneyed phrases. "All virtue is not in one pot", you solemnlyintoned. No one had suggested that it was. "You have developed a blind spot",you observed but without telling us what this might be. Could it be that weare unable to perceive the relative unimportance of the burning, violatedhamletsofViet-llam,comparedwiththesacredandaweinspiringspectacleofthe Leaders and Delegates of the Labour Party - praying for themselves? "Is;,ould be failing in my duty if I did not send you to prison", you went on.

~~~~~::~~yi~~~i~:r~h~~f~~~i~~bi~/~~~dd~~yb:op~~~~~~e=i~~~~, p~~p~~ r~e us?

18;:j~~:~:~~:~:l~~1~~:~~~~;ffi:fff~~;~~:~;;~~t7of Viet-Nam. However, they may help to draw attention to the inadequacyof a system which allows men like you to sit in jud<5ement over others.

This pamphlet has not been produced simply to have the last word witha reactionary Magistrate, although copies have been sent to theBrig:ltonBenchandtotheLordChancellor. he hope that it will in-terestandencourage all those who 're struggling in opposition to theBritish Government's cowardly support for the U.S. aggression and themany people Vlho contacted us to express their approval of the Churchdemonstration. Above all, we hope that it will help to stimulateothers who share our concern about Viet-Nam into taking v;hatever formof action their consciences can suggest.

Our object in publicizing the kind of 'justice' we received at thehands of the Brightonllagistrates is simply to throw a little light 0 nthe way in which many, if not most, magistrates courts are conducted.It may be hard to accept if you have never stood in the dock, but mostof those who have developed some experience of police andmagistra testhrough their activities for peace, know only too Vlell that there isnothing particularly unusual about the Brighton Bench. This sort ofjustice is being meted out every day. The majority of people whocome before the bench are inarticulate and ignorant of their rights;and although some magistrates do try to be fair, the general tendencyis to accept the police evidence without question and to assume thatthe accused person is guilty unless they can prove otherwise. Any-one who doubts this should spend a morning or two in court. Britishjustice is vastly overrated - but only by those without first hand ex­perienceofit.

Magistrates as a rule do not like people who answerback. We believein doing so and we urge other victims of similar treatment to followour example. Advice can be obtained from:-

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES, 4 Camden High St., London,N.W.l.

COM!..TM'EE OF 100, (publishers of this pamphlet), 13 Goodwin St., N.4.

Torn flesh, splintered bones, screaming agony are badenough. But perhaps most heart-rending of all are the tinyfaces and bodies scorched and seared by fire.

Napalm, and its more horrible companion, whitephosphorus, liquidize young flesh and carve it into gro­tesque forms. The little figures are afterward oftenscarcely human in appearance, and one cannot be con­fronted with the monstrous effects of the burning withoutbeing totally shaken.•.•. at least a quarter of a millionchildren of Vietnam have been killed in the war. •••••there must be three times that many wounded-or at least amillion child casualties since 196I.

William F. Pepper, Executive Director ofNew Rochelle Commission on Human Rights.

in Vietnam,

hospitals ... show the frightening spectacle of an im­mense distress. To the extent that one finds childrenburned from head to foot who are treated only withvasdine, because of lack of a) ointment for burns, b)cotton, c) gauze, d) personnel. In places with theatmosphere of slaughter houses for people, where fliescirculate freely on children who have been skinnedalive, there are no facilities for hygiene, no fans, and noair conditioning ...

from a report issued by the Swiss organisa­tion Terre des Hommes.

IF THE APPEAL FAILS AND THIS SEEMS LIKELY, JIM RADFORDAND NICOLAS WALTER WILL GO TO PRISON FOR TWO MONTHS. AFUND HAS BEEN OPENED TO HELP SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES INTHIS EVENT AND ALSO TO DEFRAY THE LEGAL COSTS OF THE AP-PEAL. IF YOU AGREE WITH WHAT THEY DID AND WANT TO HELP- SEND A DONATION TO:- THE BRIGHTON DEFENCE FUND, clo

JEANNE SMYTHE, 68 HEWITT ROAD, LONDON, N.8.