| |
|
|
TUDA's response to the Home Office consultation
'Managing Protest Around Parliament', January 2008
Before 2005 many people, disabled or otherwise, could turn up and protest outside Parliament without having to get the agreement of the police. Many of disabled people’s equality isues have been raised through peaceful direct action and protests outside Parliament where MPs and the media can see us.
We, TUDA, claim the freedom to assemble without prior notification or permission - and this is not open to negotiation.
There is no question but that this legislation has significantly undermined the right to peaceful protests in central London, without providing any extra real "security". It has caused lots of headaches for the Metropolitan Police, and has increased public contempt for the Government.
Interestingly the language in the consultation paper focuses entirely on Parliament, whilst failing to provide any justification for the current and theoretical extent of the Designated Area. The Designated Area currently also encompasses Downing Street, Whitehall, Labour party HQ, Liberal Democrat party HQ, the Metropolitan Police HQ, the Home Office, the MI5 Security Service building, and the Millennium ferris wheel on the other side of the river Thames from Parliament, none of which are directly relevant to the smooth running of Parliament, which is the supposed justification for the Sessional Orders and for SOCPA sections 132 to 138.
Milan Rai, who together with Maya Evans, has been prosecuted and convicted of Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 section 132-138 offences. He is now in prison. Even people who disagree with Milan Rai's political views on, say, the successful war against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and the subsequent violence thereafter, should respect his right to express those views in a dignified, pacifist, non-violent way near to where the politicians and bureaucrats work in Parliament and Whitehall. He has presented no "security" threat whatsoever.
How can the political persecution and jailing of such a Prisoner of Conscience do anything except bring the English legal system into disrepute and bring shame on the politicians who are directly responsible?
How can the United Kingdom government pretend to be morally superior to evil dictatorships and repressive regimes around the world, when they in turn can point to "political prisoner" cases in the UK, like that of Milan Rai ?
To reply to the specific questions raised by the consultation:
The consultation asks if 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). Two people can constitute an assembly. 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 if special provisions are needed for static demonstrations and marches around Parliament.
The police have many powers to control such events already - provisions under the Public Order Act, the Terrorism Act, anti social behaviour legislation 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 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 if there are any special considerations to be taken into account around Parliament.
The history of how SOCPA came into being shows that it was 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.
Under the Public Order Act, police have the powers to impose conditions on assemblies and marches of two or more people if they fear serious violence, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community. Sussex Police, for example, have imposed conditions on gatherings of as few as three people before now. In effect the law allows for the police on the day to decide exactly how much dissent they are prepared to tolerate and arrest those who do not comply.
Also explicitly mentioned is the idea of redrafting the law so that police can confiscate banners with slogans they fear might cause ‘public disorder’. This is a major step in the direction of ‘thought crime’. Just as it is an offence to participate in a banned march it will be an offence to attend a banned assembly.
It is unacceptable that security laws should be used to protect Parliamentarians from legitimate protest. This is a significant attack on our traditional rights to free expression and assembly.
We believe that for Section 13 (4), which allows
for the Commissioner of Police for the City or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner
to apply for all demonstrations in their area to be banned for up to three months
if they think that it will cause serious disorder, should be repealed
SOCPA also makes all offences arrestable, meaning that protesters, who might
previously have received a warning, could now be arrested.
It widens ASBOs, by allowing unaccountable bodies to seek them against individuals,
and creates a new criminal offence of trespass on a 'designated site' on grounds
of national security. 'National security' is not defined, which risks the new
offence being used against protesters.
Specific provisions were also brought in against animal rights protesters. The
crime of 'economic sabotage' not only extended the criminalisation of violent
and unlawful protesters, but was so broadly drafted as to make criminals of
many peaceful protestors who were simply calling for boycotts.
Using this site: A word in bright blue indicates a link that you can access by clicking on it; a word in orange indicates that you have followed this link already.