UK Police to get new powers to shut down protests before disruption begins
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
It is sad to see countries all over the world introduce authoritarian steps one by one. When was the last time a country introduced a progressive law empowering its citizens against the government?
I’m asking because I myself frequently characterize things as woke, and people might accuse me of having right-wing tendencies, but nonetheless I would be very concerned if police in my country started acting this way.
We all heard it was going to happen, but most people didn't believe it would.
There's no end, the Tories will be back in power come the next election. I think the UK population deserve this.
You have cause and effect backwards. In the UK, the media controls the government, not the other way around.
They were so comfortable in fact, they even felt okay to announce a tax cut for the very rich in the middle of a massive cost of living crisis (quickly reversed upon seeing the opinion polls, but still)!
I think it is fair and reasonable that the police be able to remove people who block the flow of traffic on roads. If they are peaceful and well-behaved maybe let them have their 10 minutes but then it should be possible to remove them.
Even the article (which is from The Guardian after all) reports that "The change would broaden and clarify the legal definition of “serious disruption” and allow police to consider protests by the same group on different days or in different places as part of the same wider action."
So, again, the exact wording of that amendment will be key and I don't think it has been published yet.
Unlimited power to shut down protests. In other words, they will shut down all protests (not the other possible meanings).
> "The change would broaden and clarify the legal definition of “serious disruption” and allow police to consider protests by the same group on different days or in different places as part of the same wider action."
This will be used by police to view every protest as some "wider action", with the worst possible implications, and they'll act accordingly.
Police should not only be able to remove people who set up illegal roadblocks, these people should be jailed and face consequences for breaking the law and illegally impeding the free movement of others in a public place, and not simply be removed from the road.
That being said, I completely disagree that police should have the power to preemptively shut down a protest that hasn't yet occurred. As many have pointed out, this is no different than prosecuting "thought crimes". It is the job of police to arrest people who have broken the law, not punish people who they guess might break the law in the future. This law is absolutely Orwellian.
The core of the issue is that nobody has the right to break the law, even if you do it in the name of "protesting". The central part of civil disobedience is that one is willing to suffer the legal consequences for their actions. When there are no legal consequences for breaking the law in the name of "protest", you end up with the chaotic situation we have today, where people are free to go around setting up roadblocks and physically restricting others from moving freely in public with no (or virtually no) consequence. It is unfortunate that instead of implementing reasonable, common-sense policies (like swift removal and moderate punishment of those setting up illegal roadblocks), authorities always overreach and use the situation for a power grab.
Ambulance took 40 minutes to attend traffic accident because roads were blocked. Accident also occurred on M20 where traffic was rerouted because other road was blocked.
Perhaps I’m not understanding, but is it legal to be climbing and stay high up on the cables on a major roadway?
Allowing protests only in some alleyway where nobody is present; or if a government can simply and easily apply postponement/cancellation tactics: This would be a problem as well.
Specifically the current 'protests', be it blocking roads or criminal damage, do not serve any constructive purpose at all. They are carried out by the 'usual suspects'. They could organise a massive gathering in Hyde Park (and similar in towns throughout the country), for example, that would get huge media coverage as well without causing problems, ah but that wouldn't be 'direct revolutionary action'...
In the US, we have other disruptive events such as marathons; parades; Presidential convoys. All of which can disrupt main roads and aren’t even protected.
For example: https://www.amny.com/transit/nyc-marathon-traffic-guide-stre...
The difference is that this is planned; and whether reasonable accommodations and alternatives are provided, if it’s too disruptive.
Honestly, police will do whatever those in power want them to do, rights be damned. I'm so sick of people who abuse their power. The thing is, people keep stretching the limits of what they can get away with, until they can't get away with it anymore. If we don't use the rights we have, then we won't have them for very long.
I intend to pursue my case as far as it takes to make a point.
Here's a 1 minute clip
They are standing out front of an abortion clinic. It’s a form of intimidation, it’s intentional and specific.
Laws also exist in Australia that restrict protest in and around an abortion clinic. It does NOT mean you can not protest against abortion. It simply means your protest should not involve the intimidation and harassment of other specific citizens as they exercise their right to engage with abortion services.
Your out of context statement has close to nothing to do with this new law change, which from first read seems unreasonable to me.
I don't find this to be a satisfying explanation. Basically it boils down to "well there's a law on the books for this, and there's a plausible reason for implementing it, therefore it's okay". The same excuse works for protesters in china being arrested for "disturbing social harmony". The objection that the parent poster is raising isn't that the people are being arbitrarily detained, it's that the reason behind the arrest was unjust.
>Laws also exist in Australia that restrict protest in and around an abortion clinic. It does NOT mean you can not protest against abortion. It simply means your protest should not involve the intimidation and harassment of other specific citizens as they exercise their right to engage with abortion services.
Would you agree with this statement if this was flipped to protect a group that you don't like, eg the cops?
"Laws also exist in [insert red state here] that restrict protest in and around a police station. It does NOT mean you can not protest against the police. It simply means your protest should not involve the intimidation and harassment of other specific citizens as they try to do their jobs."
Praying while standing is not a "form of intimidation"
Why has she chosen to stand and pray out front of an abortion clinic? She hasn’t chosen a random place. She hasn’t chosen her home, or place of worship, or a public square.
If I stood out front of your house and silently prayed for your family as they came and went, you’d eventually call the cops too. Especially if I brought my 20 mates and we stayed all night.
Protest should be utilised to bring attention to issues, and change the opinion of the majority, to enact change. It shouldn’t be used to intimidate a minority into changing their opinion or behaviour.
If the aim is to intimidate and harass vulnerable people, yes.
Patients and employees turn up to an abortion clinic. The patients being the ones who could be intimidated, less so the employees.
A slaughterhouse and a private prison are only frequented by employees. But likewise, if the protest was held outside the houses of employees from the slaughterhouse or private prison, this is again blurring the line of protest vs intimidation.
What is the intent? Is it to gather support and influence public opinion to change the rules around an activity? Or is it to intimidate participants in an activity to affect their behaviour?
I think the issue is that standing silently is intimidating and it’s a form of speech. But it should be allowed.
The purpose of the abortion protesters is to stop people from getting abortions.
The purpose of strikers is to stop customers buying and scabs working.
Etc etc.
I think we need to avoid “context” that makes things we agree with right and things we disagree with wrong.
I think the vulnerability of patients at an abortion clinic is an important factor. But I also think a similar argument could made for ‘scabs’.
It’s good food for thought, thanks.
It’s not cut-and-dry https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1144/protests-in-ne...
It’s an tension between free speech and privacy.
> Protest should be utilised to bring attention to issues, and change the opinion of the majority, to enact change.
That’s the goal.
In a free society, however, no one group owns the definition of an issue; and being near a protest is also intimidating whether or not that is the protestors’ intent.
That alone doesn’t justify restricting protests.
This is the argument of a child who states “I’m not touching you” while holding their hand directly in front of another’s face. Technically true and contextually irrelevant. An obviously bad faith argument.
But standing in a single public place and holding a placard or whatnot is not harassment.
No more than a war protestor standing in front of parliament for a month silently protesting is harassing the lawmakers in the building.
It was not so long ago that e.g. Fred Hampton was assassinated for being a charismatic and intelligent public speaker and community organizer.
As someone who sympathises with most those causes but agrees that it is all quite silly (and counterproductive), that is still no reason for this draconian law.
No doubt someone would say “times have changed as to your right to assemble”.
Rather prefer the more strict interpretation.
I believe that forms of protest that inconvenience the public should both happen, and be illegal.
What that means is that a significant mass of people is then required.
If you have ten or twenty people walking slowly down a road and as a result tens of thousands of people are inconvenienced then obviously the police should step in. If they don't, then members of the public will do instead, as we've seen.
If an issue is actually important enough then you'll be able to recruit enough people that they won't be removable without resorting to extreme force anyway. In that case the protest is far more likely to be for a legitimate cause.
Examples of minority groups in the UK to me would be things like transgender people (~0.1-1% of the population), people of Indian heritage (1-5%), etc. Small percentages of the whole, but still significant quantities (e.g. tens, hundreds of thousands).
I don't think that we can look at a group of 10-20 people with the same opinion blocking traffic in the same way. The rights of the people being disrupted have to be weighed up here.
People don’t organize organically in large groups. The media tends to lead them.
All this rule you have would do is make sure grassroots protesting isn’t permitted but when the elite run a media train on citizens minds then that will be ok.
Protests against Vietnam war or Jim Crow in the US South worked because there was a clear and actionable plan to address the issue. Withdraw from Vietnam/end segregation. These were government implemented policies and reversing them was as much about STOPPING doing something as opposed to doing it.
The whole "Stop oil/fossil fuels" is completely different. Fossil fuels are the lifeblood of our whole economic system. Fertilisers created using fossil fuels deployed en mass are the only reason we don't have mass starvation in many parts of the world. It is a indispensable part of operating our extensive transportation networks as well as generating our power.
Even under the most optimistic projections by 2050 the global use of fossil fuels will be at 50% its current levels. And this is assuming full scale adoption of nuclear power/renewables (which I support 100%).
From the image in the article if we were to "stop oil" tomorrow we would be looking at catastrophic collapses in living standards. It can't be done, it won't be done, and there is no support for it. The only option we have available is slow plodding changes to the energy grid. We don't know if it will be enough or not but these protests will do absolutely nothing except harm.
These protesters are a waste of space but that would be forgivable if it weren't for the fact that their actions are leading to law changes like this which can be used to cripple protests that can actually work like the ones that helped end Vietnam and segregation.
I'm sure there will be responses to this with claims I'm a "climate change denier" when nothing could be further from the truth. Climate change and environmental degradation of varying types are serious and important issues facing us. But that doesn't mean any petulant and poorly thought-out action supposedly taken to address the problem is worthwhile or productive. These protests fall into that category and should be unequivocally condemned.
Where payrises have been offered they have not made up the difference, and hence the strikes.
Next month it will be teachers if nothing changes.
The other hot topic issue (installing insulation in people's homes) is another no-brainer, even more so now that gas prices have gone stratospheric.
You're not a climate change denier: you're just reacting in the way most people always react to disruptive protests. It's the same way people reacted to Martin Luther King. Everybody finds disruptive people annoying on an instinctual level. It's only later, with perspective, that we usually realize that disruption was necessary, or nothing would have changed.
Fight climate change by actually working towards it. How many of those hand gluing numpties have actually cleaned a beach or a woodland for once in their lives? I'll tell you, zero.
These guys should instead be protesting outside Blackrock and Vanguard, which try to sell me a Climate Change ETF with shares from Exxon, Chevron and Aramco.
That's how protest works: you make a whole bunch of people hate you, so they bang on about how awful you are all the time. If your cause is right, you can count on enough of the heated discussions you spawn to fall in your direction, and even though everybody will pay lip service to how awful you are, they'll recognize the basic sense of what you're campaigning for.
And I also have cleaned woodland when I was youth camp counselor. Pretty sure some of the kids are now activists.
I agree that the government have less power than some Corp overall, but I mean, for some demands it's easy: homeowners should have government help to pay for their main house insulation , and pass a law that prevent rent hike in poorly insulated homes. Also create a insulation minimal requirement for new buildings.
They weren’t saying no one who cares about the environment cleaned beaches, just that there probably wasn’t much overlap in those two groups.
Also, those same weird activists type often made hundreds of kilometers to help clean Brittany's coasts. Not sure if those are the same as the people gluing their hand, but it wouldn't surprise me (non-violent, stupid actions are like their Motto).
Cleaning a beach or a wwoodland is irrelevant to the climate change.
Given that the issue of climate change is so profound and long existant (I mean, against it any crisis like Vietnam or tofay's pandemic just pale) I can only sympathize with them - and imo it's hugely unfair to blame the state becoming more deep state on them, don't do that.
It is on our all's huge lethargic laziness I really feel more and more guilty for, both deep state and climate change nonaction.
> We don't know if it will be enough or not...
Strong disagree, the way you envision what we can only do we know definitely it will not be enough. Period. Sorry to agree to your last paragraph, but that is almost climate change denial ;)
Then you understand that “stopping oil” is a thing we actually do have to do.
I prefer the current discourse in USA which is leaning towards Electrify Everything! Energy independence! Made in USA! and conscious efforts to improve the electric tech to match the performance of the analog versions. USA has its own critics of reducing emissions so what did we try to win them over? Electric f150. The first generation seems good so 10 years from now, imagine how much more compelling it’d be.
1) That the UK government immediately promises to fully fund and take responsibility for the insulation of all social housing in Britain by 2025.
2) That the UK government immediately promises to produce within four months a legally binding national plan to fully fund and take responsibility for the full low-energy and low-carbon whole-house retrofit , with no externalised costs, of all homes in Britain by 2030 as part of a just transition to full decarbonisation of all parts of society and the economy.