A SLAPP is not only something you get when a bare hand hits flesh. It’s the sound you get when a mega-corporation doesn’t like what you say about it.
SLAPPs – Strategic Lawsuit(s) Against Public Participation are not new. In fact they’ve been around for a couple of decades in the US. As we know a lot of good things have come out of the US. McDonalds, Pepsi, Kentucky Fried Chicken, the B52 bomber, the first use of a nuclear weapons against other humans. A whole range of good things.
Then there’s my home state of Tassie. Well I reckon I’m one of the good things to come out of there along with my wife, Errol Flynn, David Boon, Mary Donaldson and woodchips. Woodchips? Well that is Gunns’ contribution to the great exports from my home state.
I remember going with my dad, who was a builder, to the hardware store when I was a kid. Gunns had an account open for my dad and I used to marvel at how he could go in, load up the car with stuff, sign a bit of paper and leave. Mum always had to pay for things when she went to the supermarket.
Back then, it seemed life was simpler. But times and have changed and now Gunns is a company with a strangle hold on Tasmania’s politicians and unions. With a value of over $1 billion dollars, Gunns is the most powerful business on the Island. And power brings you influence and when power and influence don’t work, you turn to the law.
Now you may be wondering how John Howard managed to become the workers friend during his visit to Tasmania in the run up to the election? How did he get all those hardened truckies to turn up and cheer him on in Launceston? Easy, Gunns told their drivers, through their union bosses, that if they didn’t turn up, they could forget about coming to work the next day. Who do you think it was that fed and watered all those thirsty boys that afternoon? Well I can tell you it wasn’t the Sallies.
Writing on the crikey.com website, Stephen Mayne notes that, "No single company dominates another Australian jurisdiction quite like Gunns rules the roost in Tasmania. Gunns shares have now risen by 8 per cent since voters returned the Howard Government and this has added $94 million to its value in the eight trading days since the election."
Not only that, Mayne holds nothing back when he observes, "Much of this value comes from the ability of Gunns to slaughter the mighty Tasmanian forests with the express permission of Labor Premier Paul Lennon, his like-minded Liberal mate in The Lodge and their thuggish mates in the CFMEU".
That is real power and influence. However, when it comes to silencing your critics, it can be very difficult to do so, even in a nation like ours that has no enshrined freedom of speech in any federal or state constitution. On one level it must be comforting to Bob Brown, the Wilderness Society and individuals like single mum of four, Lou Geraghty, when you get SLAPPed by a company like Gunns. Comforting because when these types of companies resort to these tactics its must only be because your words and actions are beginning to bite into their ability to rape, pillage and destroy the forests you so dearly love.
So what exactly is a SLAPP? They originated in the US in the 1980’s when companies intent on destroying Californian forests were hindered from their destructive work by small, localised groups of protestors. A SLAPP is defined, "as being a civil court action which alleges that injury has been caused by the efforts of individuals or nongovernment organisations to influence government action on an issue of public interest or concern".
The strategy of using a SLAPP is to claim some ambit amount, say $6 million dollars, and then serve a writ on the defendants. In the writ are, usually, a series of conditions. One of which is to seek that the defendant make no written or spoken comment on the matter they are being sued for. In short, the writ seeks to limit the ability of one side of a debate being able to express their truly held, personal beliefs. In short, a SLAPP is a fancy way of trying to get your opponents silenced. Well, at least it’s a little more humane than dragging them behind the shelter shed and belting the crap out of them like the schoolyard bullies used to do. That or put a bullet in their head. Whatever tactic is used, the idea is to shut your critics up.
The main way this has been achieved, without resorting to violence, is through the sheer threat of having a multimillion-dollar ‘fine’ and potential civil action taken against you. The US experience has been that, "The resulting effect "chills" public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues. This chilling effect is not limited to the SLAPP defendants - other people refrain from speaking out on issues of public concern because they fear being sued for what they say". The interesting thing and the most enlightening as to why these cases are brought, is to look at the US where almost 80% of the SLAPP cases are won by those being sued. This means only one thing. The SLAPP is not meant to do anything other than to intimidate, waste time and, perhaps, win the company bringing the case a little time to do some fancy PR and save a few percentage points of their profit.
Sharon Beder, quoting a US judge, points out that, "The conceptual thread that binds [SLAPPs] is that they are suits without substantial merit that are brought by private interests to "stop citizens from exercising their political rights or to punish them for having done so" … The longer the litigation can be stretched out, the more litigation that can be churned, the greater the expense that is inflicted and the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. The purpose of such gamesmanship ranges from simple retribution for past activism to discouraging future activism".
So where are our government in all this? Where is the Tasmanian government in all this? Where are the real friends of the workers in all this?
Well as noted previously the federal government, led by that great defender of workers rights, John Howard, is happy to see Gunns profits go through the roof. Paul Lennon may be about ready to say sorry – but not on behalf of his fellow gubbas – but he is certainly not going to defend environmentalists or the resources they are trying to protect. As for the Unions, Michael O’Connor from the CFMEU said on the ABC’s PM program, and he is speaking here on behalf of his union, that "what goes around, comes around". He must think it is OK for his members to bash the bejesus out of people while at the same time offering no support to those who are trying to protect the longer term interests of forestry workers in that state.
So who will defend the SLAPP defendants? The only ones who can, if we want to make sure this trashy US import doesn’t take hold in this country, is us. As Sharon Beder argues, "The development of a climate of fear that dissuades citizens from speaking out on matters of public interest and discourages activists from continuing the ‘honourable tradition’ of civil disobedience is a threat to democracy and healthy political debate in this country. Of course lawsuits are not the only way to dissuade healthy debate on issues of importance. Litigation is however increasingly utilised to intimidate people who cannot be influenced through pressure from employers or professional associations".
We all know that those who sit in our houses of parliament do not represent us. They have been chosen, hand picked by their parties to tow the party line through thick and thin. We also know that no matter how often a company like Gunns tells us it values their workers, we know they value their profits first. No matter how often they tell us they are doing their best for us, unions are only as good and honest as the women and men who lead them – and most are good and honest. But these things alone are not enough. We must do more, collectively to not only protect, support and defend those who are currently in Gunns’ sights, but we must also keep the ‘honourable tradition’ of civil disobedience alive as we resist the tyranny of power and influence. If we don’t, we are potentially going to find whole sections of our community SLAPPed into silence.
Sources.
Sharon Beder, "SLAPPs--Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation: Coming to a Controversy Near You". From http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/SLAPPS.html
California Anti-SLAPP Project, "Survival Guide for SLAPP Victims". From http://www.casp.net/survival.html
Stephen Mayne, "Gunns, profits, mates and the National Trust". From http://www.news-tasmania.com/gunns.html