It seems another consultation on our freedom to assemble and protest is on its way. The House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights has just launched a 'Call for Evidence' in order 'to enquire into the human rights issues arising from policing and protest'. These are some of the questions asked:
• What limits, if any, should be placed on the right to protest and why?
• Should specific limitations be placed on the ability of certain groups to protest? If so, who and why?
• Should the right to protest be more strictly curtailed in relation to certain geographical areas? If yes, where, why and what limits would be acceptable?
• The Government proposes to repeal sections 132-8 SOCPA dealing with protest around Parliament and invites Parliament to consider whether additional provision is needed to ensure that Parliament's work is not disrupted by protests in Parliament Square. What, if any, additional provision is required?
• In what circumstances would it be permissible for the State to take pre-emptive action, which curtailed protests?
• Are existing police powers necessary? Are more or fewer required?
• Are counter-terrorism powers appropriately used in the policing of protests?
• In what circumstances may actions during protests be justifiably criminalised?
• How should the balance be struck between the rights of protesters and other competing interests (such as the rights of others or the prevention of disorder or crime)? Would legislative changes be desirable to strike a better balance between competing rights, or is the current legislative framework about right?
This talk of 'legislative changes' might be the first step for new policies that will allow for a further criminalisation of certain groups who are now protesting against the State and its criminal actions inside and abroad [1]. The introduction of a new set of restrictive laws regarding protest will send a clear message to protesters: "Stay at home and shut up or you might end up in prison". This remains to be seen.
Whether the intention of this consultation is to introduce more draconian legislation or not, the consultation itself should not be conducted in the first place. Our freedoms should never be put to consultation or to a vote, regardless whether a majority votes for or against them. Consultations of this type are just an attempt to give a democratic look to a very undemocratic practice: the removal of individuals' freedoms and rights by the State. It perpetuates the misleading assumption that democracy is based on the rule of the majority. The Italian and German experiences from the 1930s tell us that that is definitely not the case.
• What limits, if any, should be placed on the right to protest and why?
• Should specific limitations be placed on the ability of certain groups to protest? If so, who and why?
• Should the right to protest be more strictly curtailed in relation to certain geographical areas? If yes, where, why and what limits would be acceptable?
• The Government proposes to repeal sections 132-8 SOCPA dealing with protest around Parliament and invites Parliament to consider whether additional provision is needed to ensure that Parliament's work is not disrupted by protests in Parliament Square. What, if any, additional provision is required?
• In what circumstances would it be permissible for the State to take pre-emptive action, which curtailed protests?
• Are existing police powers necessary? Are more or fewer required?
• Are counter-terrorism powers appropriately used in the policing of protests?
• In what circumstances may actions during protests be justifiably criminalised?
• How should the balance be struck between the rights of protesters and other competing interests (such as the rights of others or the prevention of disorder or crime)? Would legislative changes be desirable to strike a better balance between competing rights, or is the current legislative framework about right?
This talk of 'legislative changes' might be the first step for new policies that will allow for a further criminalisation of certain groups who are now protesting against the State and its criminal actions inside and abroad [1]. The introduction of a new set of restrictive laws regarding protest will send a clear message to protesters: "Stay at home and shut up or you might end up in prison". This remains to be seen.
Whether the intention of this consultation is to introduce more draconian legislation or not, the consultation itself should not be conducted in the first place. Our freedoms should never be put to consultation or to a vote, regardless whether a majority votes for or against them. Consultations of this type are just an attempt to give a democratic look to a very undemocratic practice: the removal of individuals' freedoms and rights by the State. It perpetuates the misleading assumption that democracy is based on the rule of the majority. The Italian and German experiences from the 1930s tell us that that is definitely not the case.
~ read on... ~
No comments:
Post a Comment