| a website for information about initiatives to repeal the severe restrictions on freedom to protest contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 |
|
Public consultation on repealing the ban on unauthorised protest in the vicinity of Parliament - making a response Thursday 17 January 2008: deadline for responses to the Government's consultation document on Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which bans unauthorised protest in the vicinity of Parliament. Please respond - this document poses a new threat to freedom of assembly and the right to protest.
A NEW THREAT TO FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND THE RIGHT TO PROTEST It is clear that the Government are looking to repeal SOCPA because of the negative public perception of restrictions on free speech around Parliament, and that this is in large part, a result of the sustained campaigning of activists who have refused to give up a basic right to freedom of assembly without political intervention by the police. Nonetheless, there are already ominous signs that the consultation will be more spin than substance. Indeed, the first two questions raised in the consultation document concern the "harmonisation of powers to manage marches and assemblies" throughout the UK. Such "harmonisation" could mean granting the police new powers to ban public assemblies anywhere. The danger is that the Government will be able to score media points for repealing unnecessary and draconian legislation, whilst in reality further tightening the screws on protest and dissent. Protest and dissent are the lifeblood of a democratic society. It is through protest itself that freedoms of expression and assembly have been fought for and established. Please take this important opportunity to show the strength of opposition to SOCPA and that restrictions on protest around Parliament or anywhere else are completely unacceptable. TAKE ACTION - by 17th January 2008 1. It is vital that anyone who cares about the right
to protest in this country responds to
the Government consultation by the 17th January
deadline. You can do this via email (ProtestaroundParliament@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk) or
post (Managing Protest around Parliament, Public Order Unit, Home
Office, 5th Floor Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, London 2. Take part in the Freedom of Assembly Day of Action on 12 January 3. Write to your MP / MEP / local councillor etc - see here for a sample letter
RESPONDING TO THE HOME OFFICE CONSULTATIONS Outlined below are basic answers that could be given to each question in the consultation. For more detailed analysis and points to raise, see the consultation briefing document and further sample answers. The most bare-bones response to the consultation
process could call: The three key issues the consultation raises and possible basic answers: 1. Whether police powers to control marches and assemblies across the UK should be 'harmonised'. As there are less powers in place to control assemblies (except around Parliament and other sites designated under SOCPA), this 'harmonisation' is likely to mean that legislation would be put in place to control assemblies in the same way that marches are controlled (under the Public Order Act 1986). As few as two people can constitute an assembly. Such 'harmonisation' could lead to the police having the power to ban, restrict or control assemblies anywhere in the UK or for people to have to get police authorisation for simply handing out leaflets in your high street. Over recent years, new police powers and interpretations of public order legislation have led to an increase in the police trying to control dissent and free speech. There should be no new provisions aimed at restricting or controlling free assembly and free speech put in place. The consultation asks these questions: Answer: There should be no new provisions aimed at restricting or controlling free assembly and free speech put in place around Parliament or throughout the UK. Marches and assemblies are very different and this is already reflected in the law. Q2. Do you agree that the conditions that can be imposed on assemblies and marches should be harmonised? Answer: No. Such harmonisation would inevitably lead to more conditions on assemblies, including the police having the power to ban or restrict static demonstrations and to control their content.
The police have many powers to control such events already - provisions under the Public Order Act, the Terrorism Act, anti social behaviour legislation, bye-laws and others, as well as Sessional Orders which grant police special powers to ensure Parliament is not disrupted while it is in session. Parliament is the focus of protest and there should be no barriers to peaceful dissent directed towards those in power. The restrictions on protest under SOCPA have proved unworkable and discriminatory, they criminalise peaceful protestors and allow the police to make political judgements on which protests need to be controlled and they have a 'chilling effect' on free speech - when the public perceives that freedom to protest has been restricted, people are less likely to try and participate even if the law does say that no demonstration may be banned outright. The consultation asks these questions: Answer: No special provision is needed for protests around Parliament. Existing legislation already provides the police with significant powers to manage marches and assemblies around Parliament and elsewhere. Q4. Are there any other considerations the Government should take into account? Answer: Parliamentarians and those who work in government should not be shielded from public opinion. Parliament is a natural focus for protests and policing of them should demonstrate a high regard for freedom of assembly and speech.
The history of how SOCPA came into being shows that sections 132-138 were primarily drafted in order to remove Brian Haw from his 24 hour peace vigil in Parliament Square. It could be said that issues such as security, access to Parliament and 'equal access to the right to protest' were only given weight in order to justify the draconian new law. SOCPA does not address security issues or allow 'equal access to protest' and there is other legislation in place to deal with demonstrations that may restrict MPs' access to Parliament. The consultation asks these questions: Answer: Existing legislation already provides the police with significant powers to manage marches and assemblies around Parliament and elsewhere. The SOCPA model of policing has proved to be highly disproportionate and inconsistent, has been used to harass and criminalise peaceful protestors and has created a 'chilling affect' on free speech. Q6: Do you consider that a prior notification scheme should apply to static demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament? Should any scheme only apply to static demonstrations over a certain size? And if so, what size of demonstration? Answer: There should be no prior notification or authorisation needed by demonstrators. Prior notification removes the possibility of spontaneous protest; prior authorisation is completely incompatable with freedom of assembly. Q7: Do you agree that conditions in order to prevent a security risk or hindrance to the operation of Parliament should remain in relation to demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament? Answer: There is no evidence that demonstrations increase the security risk to Parliament. Sections 132-138 of SOCPA could not deter attacks on Parliament or hindrances to the operation of Parliament. Q8: Do you have a view on the area around Parliament that any distinct provisions on the right to protest should apply to? Answer: There should be no area
around Parliament that requires special provisions on the right to
protest. The present extent of the Designated Area to cover Government
as well as Parliament buildings is far greater than intended by Parliament. Sample responses prepared by Justice not Vengeance The consultation document poses eight questions to be consulted on: Public Protest – the Legislation
Framework ANSWER1: Marches and assemblies are indeed vital parts of a democratic society, and there should be a positive right to protest. Three existing police powers should certainly be removed: the power to ban marches, the power to censor placards and banners, and the ban (around Parliament) on protests which have not received prior police authorisation - a ban which contravenes the right to freedom of assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights. The removal of unnecessary and oppressive police powers may indeed lead to police powers becoming more similar in relation to marches and assemblies, but the focus should be on enhancing freedom and respecting rights, rather than tidying up legislation. Q2. Do you agree that the conditions that can be imposed on assemblies and marches should be harmonised? ANSWER2: See above. Protest in the vicinity of Parliament ANSWER3: As noted above, the ban on protest without police authorisation (infringing the right to assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights) is unacceptable in a democracy. No special policing provisions are required for protests around Parliament. Q4. Are there any other considerations the Government should take into account? ANSWER4: Parliament is rightly the focus for national political protests, and policing of protests around Parliament should demonstrate the high value this society places on the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Encouraging and managing the Right to Protest ANSWER5: The policing model embodied in sections 132-138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act has proved itself to be irrational, indiscriminate, inconsistent, irrelevant to the needs of security, and, in short, a threat to freedom. It must be repealed. We need a policing model based on fundamental human rights. Q6: Do you consider that a prior notification scheme should apply to static demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament? Should any scheme only apply to static demonstrations over a certain size? And if so, what size of demonstration? ANSWER6: Whether or not there is
a prior notification scheme, there should be no system requiring prior
authorisation from
the police, as under sections 132-138 of SOCPA. The government has
consistently confused the issue of notification with the issue of
prior Q7: Do you agree that conditions in order to prevent a security risk or hindrance to the operation of Parliament should remain in relation to demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament? ANSWER7: None of the conditions imposed under section
132-138 of SOCPA are capable of preventing terrorist attacks in the
vicinity of Parliament, or of deterring hindrances to the operation
of Parliament. They are little more than tools for intimidating and
controlling the Q8: Do you have a view on the area around Parliament that any distinct provisions on the right to protest should apply to? ANSWER8: There is no particular area around Parliament requiring special police powers, special restrictions on the right to protest or special requirements for prior authorisation of demonstrations.
|
“Freedom does not
die in one blow, it dies by inches in public legislation.”
Lord Strathclyde (Con) 15/11/06