[Imc-uk-features] feature proposal: preserving disorder - freedom to protest and the future of SOCPA

Wed Nov 14 00:35:00 PST 2007

I'd like to propose this draft feature to go up on Thursday, I'll fill
in the gaps this afternoon.

--------------------------------------------
Title: Preserving disorder: freedom to protest and the future of SOCPA
Image: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2006/12/358115.jpg
Topics: frontpage | repression | SOCPA
Author: imc-uk-features

Abstract:
The Home Office has recently published a <a
href="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-managing-protest">consultation
paper</a> which hints at what was really meant by Gordon Brown's
promise to look again at the law which restricts demonstrations near
parliament, far from repealing this legislation the consultation
indicates that the government wants to extend the restrictions on
demonstrations to cover the whole country.

The current law on demonstrations around parliament bans
spontaneous protests, requiring demonstrators to seek advance police
permission, which allows the police to impose arbitrary limits on
numbers and effectively act as political censors.

[response]

Body:
<p>
<p><strong>Brown's hollow promise</strong>

When Gordon Brown took office in June press briefings suggested
that he would soon respond to criticisms of the law on demonstrations
near parliament, the mainstream press lapped this up and dutifully
informed readers that Brown "wants to scrap the law that forbids
protests outside parliament" (<a
href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mark_thomas/2007/06/demonstrations_of_victory.html">The
Guardian</a>) to "allow Iraq protests" (<a
href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1977614.ece">The
Times</a>), others were <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374322.html">understandably
sceptical</a>.

<p>By the time Brown <a
href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070703/debtext/70703-0004.htm#07070334000173">spoke
to parliament</a> on the 3rd of July this had already become only a
vague pledge to change the law, for better or worse:

<p><em>"While balancing the need for public order with the right to
public dissent, I think it right - in consultation with the
Metropolitan Police, Parliament, the Mayor of London, Westminster City
Council and liberties groups - to change the laws that now restrict
the right to demonstrate in Parliament Square."</em>

<p>A clearer warning of what lay ahead was buried in the grandly
titled '<a href="http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm71/7170/7170.asp">Governance
of Britain</a>' Green Paper, published the same day, which stated
that:

"The Government will therefore consult widely on the provisions
in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act with a view to ensuring
that people's right to protest is not subject to unnecessary
restrictions. This review will need to reflect the security situation
and allow the business of Parliament to proceed unhindered, but will
be conducted with a presumption in favour of freedom of expression. In
return, protesters will of course need to obey the law and relevant
bylaws."

<p><strong>The origins of SOCPA</strong>

The law controlling demonstrations in parliament square, Sections
132-138 of the <a
href="http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?activeTextDocId=2086243">Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005</a> (SOCPA) is modelled on the
powers introduced by the <a
href="http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?activeTextDocId=2236942">Public
Order Act 1986</a> (POA), particularly Sections 11-12 which relate to
all processions (e.g. marches) no matter how small, requiring
organisers to give advance notice to the police and allowing a wide
range of conditions to be imposed. Section 14 of the act deals with
assemblies (e.g. static demonstrations and pickets) but these do not
require advance notice and it allows only a limited set of conditions
to be imposed. Originally conditions could only be imposed on a
gathering of at least 20, but this was reduced by the
<a href="http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?activeTextDocId=820371">Anti-social
Behaviour Act 2003</a> to a mere two people. Exactly what constitutes
an assembly is left up to the police, similarly SOCPA does not define
what it means by demonstration, exemplified by its use to prosecute a
Parliament Square <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/04/337680.html">picnicker</a>.

<p><strong>The SOCPA consultation</strong>

The Green Paper eventually (25th October) led to the <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/384584.html">publication</a>
of a consultation document ostensibly concerned with '<a
href="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-managing-protest">Managing
Protest Around Parliament</a>' seeking the views of "campaigning
non-government organisations; law enforcement agencies; and those with
specific business in and around Parliament Square".

<p>However, the first two heavily-loaded questions in the document
have no relevance to Parliament Square designated area (since Section
14 of the POA does not apply there):

"Q1: The Government believes peaceful protest is a vital part
of a democratic society, and that the police should have powers to
manage public assemblies and processions to respond to the potential
for disorder. Should the powers generally in relation to marches and
assemblies be the same?"

<p><em>"Q2: Do you agree that the conditions that can be imposed on
assemblies and marches should be harmonised?"</em>

[powers already extended by SOCPA, the exception becomes the rule]

<p><strong>What the police want</strong>

<p>[Dag X]
<p>[Brian Haw]
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/09/297819.html?c=on [hunting demo 15/9/2004]

<p>Indeed SOCPA is explicitly referenced in the November 2006 <a
href="http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/fullreport161106.pdf">IPCC report</a> on
that demonstration:

"Under the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005,
demonstrations in Parliament Square can now only be held after
obtaining a licence from the Metropolitan Police. The numbers of
demonstrators will be able to be limited and should ensure that at any
future demonstration in this area, the MPS will be able to erect a
'Wapping box' formation of barriers around the grassed area, and
effectively control and limit the numbers of persons attending."

The Metropolitan Police's subsequent <a
href="http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/mpa/2007/070426/06.htm">Public
Order Review</a> published in April announced that they were seeking
"new legislation introducing powers to take pre-emptive action to
prevent confrontation".

<p>[police already assume all protest illegal]
[similarity with Manchester Uni March 1985 / Wapping prior to POA]
[Leon Brittan public order white paper May 1985]
[Mex embassy, "illegal demonstration", 8 arrests]
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/354866.html
[Bashtherich, "illegal demonstration", 2 arrests for leaving]
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385002.html

<p><strong>Their law</strong>

The police have been emboldened by a series of court decisions over
the past year which have reinforced their belief that they are able
regulate public gatherings entirely as they see fit.

<p>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/3209.html - Blum
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd131206/lapor-1.htm
Fairford / Laporte
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/989.html - Austin Saxby 2007
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/477.html - Kay

[all theoretically HRA compliant]

<em>The strongest weapon in the police arsenal is not CS gas or
plastic bullets, the deployment of which causes some public concern,
but effective control of a willing and uncritical press which causes
none.</em>

[Gareth Pierce, Guardian 15/3/1982]
--------------------------------------------

mit liebe u. wut,
Jeff
-- 
The suburbs dream of violence. Asleep in their drowsy villas,
sheltered by benevolent shopping malls, they wait patiently for the
nightmares that will wake them into a more passionate world.