The arrests of anti-monarchy protesters in Britain have raised considerations in regards to the freedom of speech, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.
THE RIGHT TO PROTEST, fragile and meekly protected by the judiciary in Britain’s widespread legislation custom, didn’t actually maintain a lot drive until European legislation confirmed it. Within the UK, condemning different nations for suppressing rights to protest is customary fare.
So it was with some discomforting shock – not less than to quite a lot of speaking heads – that folks have been arrested for protesting in opposition to the monarchy after the passing of Queen Elizabeth II.
Such shock is misplaced. Within the UK, protestors could be marched away earlier than the operation of huge, and imprecise discretionary powers wielded by the police. An previous, historical favorite is the breaching of the peace, one thing many a blue-clad officer is sure to see in any gathering of human beings.
Along with that common energy out there to the police, the Public Order Act 1986 UK additionally covers public order offences. Part 5 enumerates situations the place an individual is responsible of such offences, the place ‘they use threatening or abusive phrases or behaviour or disorderly behaviour or disorderly behaviour’ or show ‘any writing, signal or seen illustration which is threatening or abusive’.
A further, emotive ingredient can be added to the laws. Such conduct ought to happen ‘throughout the listening to or sight of an individual prone to be brought about harassment, alarm or misery thereby’. Throughout instances of government-declared mourning, the abuse of such wording is nigh boundless, regardless of the imprecise defence of “cheap accuse” out there to the accused occasion.
It’s exactly in such wording that suppression of protest can happen with relative ease. The circumstances of grieving have been so totally whole within the aftermath of Princess Diana’s loss of life as to be sinisterly oppressive. The slightest present of disagreement with the grievers was handled as irregular and offensive.
It was, as Jonathan Freedland wrote:
‘…our collective second of insanity, every week when in some way we misplaced our grip.’
The police can depend upon one other weapon of their already huge armoury of quelling protest. The newest Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 is one more instrument, including “noise-related” provisions.
It grants police powers to restrict public processions, public assemblies and one-person protests:
‘…the place it’s moderately believed that the noise they generated could lead to critical disruption to the actions of an organisation carried on within the neighborhood or have a major affect on folks within the neighborhood of the protest.’
The public nuisance factor within the laws can be troubling. Police powers are granted to allow the arrest and charging of people accountable for knowingly or recklessly doing one thing that dangers or causes critical hurt to the general public. This additionally covers obstructions to the general public ‘within the train or enjoyment of a proper which may be exercised or loved by the general public at giant’.
The laws defines critical hurt as:
‘…loss of life, private damage or illness; lack of, or injury to, property, or; critical misery, critical annoyance, critical inconvenience or lack of amenity.’
Whereas the diploma of mourning for the Queen’s passing has lacked the extraordinary and grotesque mawkishness proven at Diana’s loss of life, these wishing to sport a distinct view have additionally been singled out for his or her dissent. There’s a good quantity who see little benefit within the Monarchy persevering with and have expressed disagreement with the brand new occupant. One anti-royal protestor, holding the signal ‘Not my king’ in a peaceable and dignified method, was eliminated by police in an incident that brought about a flutter of concern.
A protestor in Edinburgh was additionally arrested for holding up the considerably spicier ‘Fuck imperialism, abolish monarchy’ placard in entrance of St Giles Cathedral. Based on a police spokeswoman, the arrest was made “in reference to a breach of the peace”. Conservative commentator Brendan O’Neill noticed it fairly in a different way, calling it ‘an alarming, nearly medieval act of censorship’ and ‘an insupportable assault on freedom of speech’.
Regardless of initiating quite a lot of arrests, the Metropolitan Police insist, as they have a tendency to, that:
‘The general public completely has a proper to protest and we have now been making this clear to all officers concerned within the extraordinary operation at the moment going down.’
For these believers in Britannic exceptionalism, this was disturbing. It troubled College of East Anglia educational David Mead, who discovered it troublesome to determine ‘what legal offences protesters might need dedicated by shouting “not my king” or “abolish the monarchy” because the royal procession of the casket made its means alongside the streets’.
Mead poses a couple of questions. Was there threatening or abusive language prone to trigger harassment, alarm or misery throughout the that means of the Public Order Act? Seemingly not. Had been the chants or placards in query threatening or abusive? Once more, the case didn’t stack up. Even the general public nuisance cost would fail to stay.
Maybe the one floor left was that unclear energy of taking proportionate motion to stop breaches of the peace. Even in an absence of violence, the police may nonetheless determine that violence to an individual or property may imminently come up. Finest step in earlier than it’s too late.
That is hardly a passable state of affairs, exhibiting, but once more, that the Sceptred Isle can hardly be counted as an impregnable bastion of free speech and public dissent. ‘If persons are not allowed to quietly, if offensively, protest in opposition to the proclamation of a king,’ displays O’Neill, ‘then clearly our nation is just not as free as we thought’.
Assist impartial journalism Subscribe to IA.