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

Fri Nov 16 05:15:05 PST 2007

I kinda agree with Ben, the feature is overly editorial compared to
usual, but I think it's justified in this case, because there seem to
be very few Indy contributors prepared to deal with the intricacies of
public order law, not that I can really blame them, it is pretty
depressing.

Final draft below, can someone it please publish it.

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

Abstract:
The Home Office has recently published a <a
href="/en/2007/10/384584.html">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. See a <a
href="/en/2006/12/358676.html">timeline</a> of its effects.

A <a href="/en/2007/11/385966.html">public meeting</a> challenging
the new proposal will be held at the London School of Economics on the
2nd December.

<p><strong>Links:</strong> <a
href="http://socpa-movie.blogspot.com/">SOCPA the movie</a>|<a
href="http://www.statewatch.org/asbo/asbowatch-protesters.htm">ASBOwatch</a>|<a
href="http://www.repeal-socpa.info/">Repeal SOCPA</a>|<a
href="http://www.stateofemergency.org.uk/">State of Emergency</a>|<a
href="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-managing-protest">the
Consultation Document</a>|<a href="/en/actions/2006/socpa/">SOCPA
topic page</a>

Body:
<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="/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="/en/2006/04/337680.html">picnicker</a>.

The Public Order Act (POA), originally the Criminal Disorder Bill, was
the culmination of six years of planning and propaganda by the
Thatcher government, followed by a mere six weeks of public
consultation, sold on the now familiar 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>

The Green Paper eventually (25th October) led to the <a
href="/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>

As outlined above the powers on marches were already extended to
assemblies near parliament by SOCPA, because of it's claimed 'special
character', so now the exception will become the rule. The implication
of these proposals is that any public gathering, anywhere could be
criminalised at the sole discretion of any passing policeman unless it
had obtained advance permission.

<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:

"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."

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="/en/2004/08/296948.html">dispersal zones</a>, <a
href="/en/2006/02/334015.html#c142427">demanding names and
addresses</a>, injunctions (<a
href="/en/2006/05/340013.html">EDO</a>|<a
href="/en/2007/08/377935.html">Heathrow</a>), <a
href="/en/2006/05/341420.html">ASBOs</a>, and <a
href="/en/2007/09/381253.html">alcohol-related crime orders</a>.

The SOCPA law was promoted to parliament as a means to rid them of
Brian Haw's Parliament Square vigil, and much of the subsequent media
coverage, both <a
href="http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/articles.htm">mainstream</a>
and <a href="/en/2006/12/358676.html">alternative</a>, has
concentrated on how it affects him and his supporters nothing in the
Act itself would actually allow the police to prevent him remaining,
in fact since he
<a href="/en/2006/05/340022.html">applied for police permission</a> he
serves as an easy example of the government's claimed tolerance of
protest.

<p>The police's desire for the SOCPA law is more clearly rooted in
other more volatile events including the <a
href="/en/2003/03/59860.html">'Day X'</a> schoolkids' protests at the
beginning of the 2003 Iraq invasion, and most obviously the September
2004 Countryside Alliance <a
href="/en/2004/09/297819.html?c=on">pro-hunting demo</a>, which caused
them much criticism, not because the tactics were exceptionally harsh
- the Square was eventually cleared that evening by police who were
ordered not to carry batons - but because those on the receiving end
of police violence were 'respectable' people in the eyes of the press,
so they felt they need for a different approach focussing more on
control and less on reaction. 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 this April announced that they were seeking
"new legislation introducing powers to take pre-emptive action to
prevent confrontation".

While much has been done by Mark Thomas and others to publicise the
SOCPA restrictions in a variety of ways (<a
href="/en/2006/06/342456.html">1</a>|<a
href="/en/2006/09/351431.html">2</a>|<a
href="/en/2006/11/355347.html">3</a>|<a
href="/en/2007/04/367350.html">4</a>) they have faced little direct
opposition or defiance, and the police have begun to act as though
SOCPA already applies everywhere, for example in October 2006
demonstrators at the <a href="/en/2006/10/354866.html">Mexican
embassy</a> were told they had to move on as it was an "illegal
demonstration" because there was "no permission", out of 25 protesters
8 were arrested after dozens of police arriving in 24 cars and vans
swarmed into the street. All 8 were acquitted at trial in May 2006.
During the Spacehijackers' <a
href="/en/2007/05/369668.html">Suited-and-Booted</a> Mayday event one
person was arrested for refusing to follow police orders to disperse
from an "illegal demonstration". They were acquitted in October. Class
War's <a href="/en/2007/11/385002.html">Bash the Rich</a>, demo was
again declared to be an "illegal demonstration", surrounded by police
and two people were arrested for attempting to leave it - "you either
march where we tell you, or you're nicked". Even those groups, like
the Stop the War Coalition which <a
href="/en/2006/01/331285.html">habitually</a> <a
href="/en/2007/10/382737.html#c182291">collaborate</a> with police by
seeking permission have faced <a
href="/en/2007/10/383878.html">increased restrictions</a>, and been <a
href="/en/2007/10/383514.html">criticised</a> for facilitating the
criminalisation of others.

These attempts by police to extend their powers by testing what
they can get away with before being given backdated authority by
parliament have many parallels to event before the passing of the POA.
While the excesses of Orgreave and Wapping are well known, police
actions at two minor demonstrations are worth recollecting, during
Thatcher's October 1984 visit to All Souls' College Oxford police
attacked a student demonstration and made 30 arrests, the following
March then Home Secretary Leon Brittan visited Manchester University
to make a speech on law and order, the police again attacked
protesting students, making 38 arrests and leaving many badly injured.
Brittan denounced the demonstrators as "red fascist scum", and used
these as examples of a growing problem to be 'neutralised' when
presenting his Public Order White Paper (which became the POA) to
parliament two months later.

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

The police have been emboldened to seek more power by a series of
recent court decisions which have reinforced their belief that they
are able regulate public gatherings entirely as they see fit. The
first court challenge over SOCPA (<a
href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/3209.html">Blum
vs DPP</a>) <a href="/en/2006/12/358620.html">failed</a> completely.
The Fairford coaches judgment (<a
href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd131206/lapor-1.htm">Laporte
vs Gloucestershire Police</a>) widely regarded as an <a
href="/en/2006/12/358276.html">important victory</a> did at the same
time approve the police turning the coaches away from the protest, and
this was recently used to justify the Court of Appeal's recent
dismissal of the Mayday 2001 compensation case (<a
href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/989.html">Austin vs
Met Police</a>), agreeing with the High Court's <a
href="/en/2005/04/308505.html">previous ruling</a> that the Oxford
Circus police cordon but also adding the idea that even those not
involved in any protest had a duty to go along quietly with police
containment. While the police's <a
href="/en/2007/05/371457.html">successful appeal</a> against Critical
Mass (<a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/477.html">Met
Police vs Kay</a>) has had little affect on the rides, it does have
implications for anyone organising other processions, as the first
major decision on them since 1950. Another hardly publicised case (<a
href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1118.html">Singh vs
West Midlands Police</a>) approved police use of 'anti-social
behaviour' dispersal zones against protesters.

What all of these cases, and every law restricting protests since the
POA have in common is the false claim that they are a reasonable and
rational response to difficult situation in which the freedom to
protest has to be balanced against the protection of the 'wider
community'. This assumes from the outset that what people believe
constitute fundamental rights, such as political demonstration or
picketing, are inherently against the interests of the wider
community. It is with this assumed logic that our supposed rights are
contained and suppressed, supported by the press portrayal of
protesters as hooligans because as Gareth Pierce said in 1982:
<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>
--------------------------------------------

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.