The audacity of BAA, in seeking an injunction to stop protesters at Heathrow airport, is a reflection of a growing confidence among those seeking to shut down dissent altogether.

The rationale for such action is to be found in the "war on terror", a phrase that seems to be wheeled out every time an excuse needs to be found to curtail civil liberties. There can be little doubt that BAA has seen its chance to once again conjure up the spectre of terrorism with the recent attack on Glasgow airport. What better excuse to provide the background mood music for getting an injunction to ban a legitimate airport protest?

The terror threat has been cited regularly to legitimate cutting civil liberties in the name of enhancing security. Remember the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which was used to stop protests around the Whitehall area? The victims include anti-war protester Maya Evans, who was arrested under the act for reading out the names of soldiers and civilians killed in Iraq near to Downing Street.

In another case, terror laws were used a couple of years ago against protesters outside an arms exhibition in London.

It is difficult not to conclude that efforts to criminalise legitimate protest have their roots in a malfunctioning democracy that does not really want to listen to its people. The response of government to the 1 million-plus anti-war protesters who demonstrated in February 2003 was to ignore them and press on with an illegal war.

Many of those joining the protest at Heathrow would claim that conventional methods of protest don't work. The anti-war march is the best example, but what of other, conventional means? Letter writing seems to have a limited effect. Then there are the government's farcical consultations, which take evidence over a set timeframe only to usually ignore the views gathered and push ahead with the original proposals anyway. The most brazen example of this was the recent exercise conducted over the future of the post office network. Evidence was taken from a variety of organisations from Age Concern to the Communication Workers Union - then the views were ignored, as the original proposal went forward virtually unaltered.

There is a growing discontent in the country that the government, whatever its political colour, is simply there to serve big business and vested interests. They are the managers of the masses for the interests of the few.

The space in which legitimate protest takes place is clearly under threat. When traditional means of democratic negotiation fail, then protest turns to peaceful non-violent direct action. This form of protest has a proud tradition stretching back through the anti-road movement, the 1960s and 70s civil rights protests in Northern Ireland, the Greenham Common women and the suffragettes. Recent actions indicate a clear move afoot to criminalise such protest.

What BAA and others need to realise is that protest will not go away but will simply take another form. If letter writing and consultation with MPs don't work, protesters turn to peaceful direct action. If peaceful direct action fails - as it did in Northern Ireland - then people turn to more violent means. It would be the ultimate irony if, in seeking to use the terror threat to stop legitimate protest, the likes of BAA actually brought on a far more violent form of dissent.

The real answer of course is to listen to citizen's legitimate protests and act accordingly - its called democracy and it would be worth giving it another try in this country.