As the shocking images come from Saturday evening’s vigil in memory of Sarah Everard at Clapham Common come out, I think it is time to discuss this government’s attack on protest rights. Let’s be clear, what happened on Saturday is not an aberration but rather symbolic of this Conservative government’s contempt for protest rights, for human rights and for social justice. The vigil was not unlawful, as Cressida Dick tried to argue. Rather, as the High Court decided on the case brought by initial organisers Reclaim These Streets, it was the Met’s blanket ban on protests that was unlawful. The Met accepted during the 12th March case that Tier 4 regulations did not allow them to prevent people from expressing their right to protest and freedom of expression, unless it was necessary and proportionate to do so. As we have seen elsewhere, vigils went ahead peacefully, socially distanced and without the brutality Met officers inflicted in Clapham. So, if a vigil was perfectly lawful why did the Met remain obstinate? And what else about restrictions on peaceful protest that the Tories are introducing this week?
Cressida Dick went out on Sunday morning saying that if the vigil was lawful, she would have been present. Ignoring that the vigil was lawful, contrary to Dick’s remarks, should we trust what she says? Absolutely not. Dick is far from a believer in protest rights. In June 2020 OpenDemocracy’s Peter Geoghegan and Jenna Corderoy reported that Cressida Dick urged Priti Patel to use Extinction Rebellion protests as a “much-needed opportunity” to enhance police powers to prevent protests. Dick’s December 13th letter came after the High Court overturned the Met’s ban on XR protests within London, which was considered beyond the powers in the Public Order Act 1986. Then, as now, it seems that Dick is reacting to a situation where the Met was misapplying the law and misinterpreting this situation as the law being wrong rather than her officers and her police force.
This authoritarian streak characterises the government as well. Like Dick, Priti Patel got worried about apparently ‘disruptive’ protests and ordered a HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) review following last summer’s BLM protests in London. This report calls for the expansion of covert intelligence gathering methods and an increased use of facial recognition technology, despite the Court of Appeal determining in Ed Bridges v. South Wales Police [2020], that the use of such technology constitutes a breach privacy laws, data protection laws and equality laws. The report also calls for expanding stop-and-search and for organisers of static protests to provide advance notice of plans to enable police to ban. It essentially calls for vastly augmenting the powers of the state while restricting protest rights and privacy rights.
This leads us to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. It is a highly authoritarian piece of legislation, with the section concerning public order especially worrying. I’ll go through a few of its provisions. It goes beyond the Public Order Act, which allows Police to restrict protests if there is a risk of “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.” Now, if the noise of a demonstration risks causing “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the assembly”, or if the “noise generated by persons taking part in the assembly may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the assembly”, Police can restrict protests. Or, to put it simply, if the noise of protest distracts any one person working in a nearby office, including those working in Parliament, then Police can restrict a demonstration. This is a very low threshold. And it gets worse. If you cause anyone to suffer or put anyone at risk of suffering “serious annoyance, serious inconvenience” then you could face a fine or up to 10 years in prison. In essence, this Bill criminalises the very point of protests – that is to be disruptive, to be loud, to get ignored issues heard. It is, as Ian Dunt says, “cancel culture on a statutory footing, directed against the left.”
As the Labour Party finally came out against this bill following the events at Clapham Common, we should focus all pressure on pushing Conservative MPs against the legislation. It is being railroaded through this week, with only two days for debate, in order to avoid its consequences being fully understood before MPs vote on it. Here are some potential consequences. On Sunday evening The Guardian reported that more than 150 organisations signed an open letter in protest of the PCSC Bill. Concerns include that it would create a class of people treated as “permanent criminals” (Kevin Blowe, Netpol) and that it will have a chilling effect on protests. It offers more for statutes than for women, despite Tory Party co-chair Amanda Milling’s attempt to gaslight the country by claiming it will “protect women from violent criminals.” At this link are MPs’ details (https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons) please write to your MP and tell them to vote against this draconian piece of legislation.
Sources: