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

Thu Nov 15 05:13:14 PST 2007

Nicely timed feature to relieve the centre column boredom. Suggest you
include this link:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/actions/2006/socpa/

Well done.

Doug.

PS. Am I still being subjected to emergency moderation?

On Thu, November 15, 2007 4:17 am, Jeff Parks wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>
>> I'd like to propose this draft feature to go up on Thursday, I'll fill
>> in the gaps this afternoon.
>
> Make that Friday, typing with one arm is sloooowww. Second draft below:
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> 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">c
> onsultation 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.
>
> <p>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.
>
> [public meeting details]
>
>
> Body:
> <p>
> <p><strong>Brown's hollow promise</strong>
>
>
> <p>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 <em>"wants to scrap the law that forbids protests
> outside parliament"</em> (<a
> href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mark_thomas/2007/06/demonstrati
> ons_of_victory.html">The Guardian</a>) to <em>"allow Iraq protests"</em>
> (<a
> href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1977614.ece">T
> he 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">G
> overnance of Britain</a>' Green Paper, published the same day, which
> stated that:
>
>
> <p><em>"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."</em>
>
> <p><strong>The origins of SOCPA</strong>
>
>
> <p>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=223694
> 2">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>.
>
>
> The Public Order Act (POA), originally called the Criminal Disorder
> Bill, was the culmination of six years of planning and propaganda by
> the Thatcher government, followed by six weeks of consultation, sold on the
> basis that <em>"in establishing a new legal framework covering
> processions, demonstrations and assemblies, the Government wanted to
> ensure that the right to protest, march and picket peacefully should be
> regulated only to the extent required to preserve order."</em>
>
> <p><strong>The SOCPA consultation</strong>
>
>
> <p>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 <em>"campaigning
> non-government organisations; law enforcement agencies; and those with
> specific business in and around Parliament Square"</em>.
>
> <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):
>
> <p><em>"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?"</em>
>
> <p><em>"Q2: Do you agree that the conditions that can be imposed on
> assemblies and marches should be harmonised?"</em>
>
> [s11 powers already extended by SOCPA, the exception becomes the rule]
>
>
> <p><strong>What the police want</strong>
>
>
> The police have long regarded public protest as part of a 'spectrum of
> disorder' which they define as:
>
> <p><em>"Disorder includes any act that is contrary to the general
> public's perception of normality. Disorder has the potential adversely to
> affect the status quo and is almost always a predictor of future
> crime."</em>
>
> The Labour government avoids talk of 'disorder' which suggests a lack
> of control and prefers to refer to 'anti-social behaviour' which blames the
> individual, but the underlying assumptions are the same. All of their
> 'anti-social behaviour' laws are based on Section 5 of
> the POA, which criminalised 'disorderly conduct', defined at the discretion
> of the police, so it is no surprise that the police have applied the full
> range of 'anti-social behaviour' powers to protesters including <a
> href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296948.html">dispersal
> zones</a>, <a
> href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/02/334015.html#c142427">demandi
> ng names and addresses</a>, injunctions (<a
> href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/05/340013.html">EDO</a>|<a
> href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/377935.html">Heathrow</a>),
> <a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/05/341420.html">ASBOs</a>,
> and <a
> href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/381253.html">alcohol-related
>  crime orders</a>.
>
> <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:
>
> <p><em>"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."</em>
>
> <p>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
> <em>"new legislation introducing powers to take pre-emptive action to
> prevent confrontation"</em>.
>
> <p>[police already assume all demonstrations illegal]
> [similarity with All Souls 1984 / Manchester Uni March 1985 / Wapping
> prior to POA] [public order review June 1979 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
> [habitually collaborate - rikki court report, stwc letter, open letter]
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/331285.html
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382737.html#c182291
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/383514.html
>
>
> <p><strong>Their law</strong>
>
>
> <p>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
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1118.html - Singh
>
>
> [all theoretically HRA compliant]
>
>
> <p><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.
>
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>
>