radiofree.asia

Category: right to protest

  • Jury Delivers Verdict Finding Entities Liable For More Than $660 Million

    Mandan, North Dakota — A Morton County jury of nine reached a verdict in Energy Transfer’s meritless lawsuit against Greenpeace entities in the US (Greenpeace Inc, Greenpeace Fund), and Greenpeace International, finding the entities liable for more than US$660 million, today. Big Oil Bullies around the world will continue to try to silence free speech and peaceful protest, but the fight against Energy Transfer’s meritless SLAPP lawsuit is not over.

    “This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,” said Sushma Raman, Interim Executive Director Greenpeace Inc, Greenpeace Fund.

    The post Jury Delivers Verdict Finding Entities Liable For More Than $660 Million appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Climate activist Violet Coco’s jail sentence overturned

    Climate activist Violet Coco has been released, after a successful appeal of her 15-month jail sentence for blocking one lane of traffic for about 30 minutes on the Sydney Harbour Bridge last April. Ben Radford reports.

  • Socialist candidate: ‘NSW is a police state’

    Activist Stephen Langford has been arrested for failing to adhere to draconian bail conditions, which prevent him from being in the Sydney CBD. Pip Hinman reports.

  • Sunak wants to make the Public Order Bill even worse – it’s time to fight back

    Yesterday, prime minister Rishi Sunak announced that he intended to add new amendments to the Public Order Bill, one of the government’s latest legislative affronts against the people.

    The Bill is already a vicious attack on everyone’s freedom to take to the streets in protest. It targets several of the direct-action tactics used by UK social movements. These include laws against campaigners locking-on or going equipped to lock-on.

    The new legislation also aims to criminalise tunelling, a tactic which has often been used effectively by ecological movements, and seeks to increase police stop and search powers. It also proposes new Serious Disruption Prevention Orders. These orders would include forcing people to wear electronic tags to stop them from protesting. Police can impose these orders even when the person concerned has not been convicted of a crime.

    New amendments

    Sunak proposed the following new additions to the Bill. His statement says:

    police will not need to wait for disruption to take place and can shut protests down before chaos erupts

    This amendment would further empower the police to preemptively shut down protests and arrest participants. In fact, the police already have plenty of powers to do this. For example, Section 14 of the existing Public Order Act allows cops to impose conditions and make arrests if they believe a protest “may result in serious public disorder”. But Sunak is hoping to give the police even more preemptive powers by broadening “the legal definition of ‘serious disruption’”.

    Sunak also said that his amendments would mean that:

    • police will not need to treat a series of protests by the same group as standalone incidents but will be able to consider their total impact
    • police will be able to consider long-running campaigns designed to cause repeat disruption over a period of days or weeks

    As someone who was part of a ten-year-long struggle – which involved weekly protests – to shut down my local weapons factory, I can tell you for a fact that the police already treat ongoing protest campaigns very differently to standalone protests. The police are there to back up the powerful. They will try to stamp out any sustained, effective resistance from below. During those ten years my comrades and I were beaten up repeatedly, arrested, imprisoned, dubbed ‘domestic extremists’. We were followed by uniformed officers when going about our daily business, slapped with civil injunctions, spied on by undercover cops, and repeatedly stopped under the Terrorism Act.

    These police powers already exist, but Sunak wants to strengthen them. It’s up to us to resist.

    Response

    Emily Apple of the Network for Police Monitoring remarked that the government’s press release was vague, and didn’t contain the actual proposed legal amendments to the Bill:

    Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, said that the Public Order Bill was more extreme than many counter-terror powers:

    Kevin Smith, head of media for the New Economy Organisers Network (NEON), noted that the Public Order Bill is being pushed through at the same time as the Tories are proposing anti-strike legislation:

    Tired, predictable bullshit

    Despite all this, Sunak said in a statement on 16 January:

    The right to protest is a fundamental principle of our democracy

    The commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service echoed his bullshit:

    It is clearly understood that everybody has the right to protest

    On top of this, chief constable Harrington said:

    “Policing is not anti-protest, but there is a difference between protest and criminal activism

    These kind of statements from the government and police are written from a familiar template. They affirm their supposed commitment to the ‘right to protest’ while bringing in more and more legislation to take away people’s freedoms.

    In 2013, in an article for Corporate Watch analysing the legislative attacks on our freedoms by successive Labour and Tory governments, I wrote:

    The British government, like all liberal ‘democracies’, frequently proclaims itself a defender of freedom of expression and assembly. However, this is usually accompanied by the words ‘rule of law’… this provides a get-out clause, enabling governments to justify the repression of the same political freedoms they claim to defend. Since this ‘rule of law’ is created and developed by governments and the judicial system, it ensures governments can devise new ways with which to repress those who threaten state and corporate interests in response to changing circumstances and changing patterns of dissent. In this way the ‘rule of law’ serves to protect capitalist interests, in the name of public order, security and democracy.

    We need to remind them that the streets are ours

    Sunak claims that the new amendments are aimed at preventing disruption to “the lives of the ordinary public”, but this is part of a tired old trope that we have been hearing all our lives. Don’t buy his bullshit. The Public Order Bill and its amendments are part of a state-orchestrated attack on people’s ability to act for change. They’re part of the same authoritarian strategy as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, and the recent legislative attacks on striking workers.

    We need to reaffirm that it’s our communities who control the streets, not the government or the cops. Generations of struggling people before us have had to do the same, from the rebels of the Brixton uprising of 1981 who rose up against the police’s racist stop and search powers, to the striking miners, whose struggle unfolded against the backdrop of increasing anti-union legislation. To the coalition of radicals who reclaimed the streets in the 90s, in the face of an earlier Criminal Justice Bill.

    Fast forward to 2011, and people rose up in many cities across the UK after police murdered Mark Duggan – yet another Black man killed by the state. And to 2021, when protesters battled the cops outside Bristol’s Bridewell Police Station, just weeks after the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer – and as the government was pushing through yet another law designed to take away our freedoms.

    Its 2023, and the state is busy mounting fresh attack on us. It’s up to us to remind them of our strength and our power, and that the streets are ours.

    Featured image via Eliza Egret

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • NSW anti-protest laws put non-violent climate activist in jail

    Climate activist Violet CoCo to 15 month’s prison for blocking vehicles, possessing a bright light distress signal and refusing to comply with police directions, reports Rachel Evans.

  • Tell Labor to commit to repeal the anti-protest laws

    The NSW Council for Civil Liberties is campaigning for NSW Labor Party delegates to commit to repealing the anti-democratic laws. Josh Pallas reports.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Crushing dissent: Greens MP says NSW Labor has abandoned its base

    New South Wales Greens MP Abigail Boyd told Suzanne James that NSW Labor has abandoned its base, ignoring the wave of concern about climate change that obliterated the federal Coalition government.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Greens councillor charged by Council over Queen Street Mall protest

    Brisbane City Council has charged Greens councillor Jonathan Sri in connection with a protest in the Queen Street Mall in September 2020, writes Alex Bainbridge.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Cop watching and legal observers will be crucial as Priti Patel expands stop and search powers

    Weeks after the draconian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC Act) became law, Priti Patel has written a letter to police forces lifting restrictions on stop and search powers.

    When a section 60 order is in place, officers have the right to search people without suspicion in an area where they expect serious violence. While home secretary, Theresa May imposed restrictions on its use due to concerns they were used discriminatorily.

    Stop and search powers disproportionately target Black and other ethnic minority people. Just last month, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) found:

    In year ending March 2021, people from a Black or Black British background people were seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than those from a White ethnic background.

    While people from an Asian or Asian British background, or mixed ethnic background, were approximately two and half times more likely to be stopped and searched than those from a white ethnic background.

    Nina Champion, director of Criminal Justice Alliance, said in 2021:

    Just 0.79 percent of section 60 searches resulted in police officers finding weapons over the last year.

    And, as The Canary’s Sophia Purdy-Moore argues:

    Stop and search, and policing in general, does not prevent crime. It doesn’t protect communities, and it only serves to traumatise and criminalise the most marginalised people in society.

    Even further expansion of search powers

    If this wasn’t bad enough, the government has recently introduced a new bill that will further expand the reach of section 60 searches to protests. This will give the police the power to use suspicionless stop and search powers if they think protest-related offences are going to occur. It is anticipated that, like the original section 60 powers, this will be used disproportionately against marginalised communities.

    Police do not keep people safe. If anything, the police cause harm to individuals and communities. But there are grassroots groups that monitor the police and help to hold them to account. Organisations like Bristol CopWatch provide examples of how we can use community monitoring to challenge the way we are policed.

    Meanwhile, at protests, legal observers monitor the police. Now, an important new report shows the importance of these volunteers. Legal observers are even more vital given the government’s plans to further stifle dissent in any way it can.

    Legal observers

    The Article 11 Trust, alongside the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol), have released a new report called Protecting Protest: Police Treatment of Legal Observers. According to the report, legal observers (LOs) are volunteers who:

    are independent and don’t participate in protest activity such as chanting or carrying placards. They monitor police operations and conduct, compiling independent notes as evidence of incidents including arrests, and distribute legal advice to protesters.

    So why are legal observers important for the right to protest? Legal observers are trained to independently monitor police behaviour at protests, and to give support to protestors. In the current climate, policing is becoming more aggressive. This includes restrictions on protestors, increased police powers that are proven to target minorities, and the use of excessive force.

    Findings

    The people who participated in the research had a cumulative experience of 135 years and 8 months as legal observers. The report found that:

    • 38% of LOs thought police had “poor or no knowledge” of legal observers.
    • 86% of LOs thought that police attitudes towards observers were “somewhat” or “strongly negative”.
    • 75% of LOs had experienced a threat of arrest.
    • 90% of LOs were met with “aggression or physical force”.

    And, worryingly:

    78% of LOs indicated experiencing police attempting to restrict or obstruct the activity or effectiveness of LOs, somewhat often to extremely often.

    The report also found that certain causes were policed more harshly:

    BLM, environmental groups, and Palestine solidarity movements were more harshly policed.

    LO 19 explained how: “The presence of mainstream media cameras is the number one thing that keeps you safe at a protest. As soon as nobody is watching police violence will follow”.

    Accountability

    It’s important to note that LOs support people who are arrested:

    This involves observing and taking detailed contemporaneous notes of arrests in case of, for example, excessive use of force or police misconduct, and reporting the arrest to a back office team that can follow up with the arrestee. Evidence from LOs can be used in criminal or civil proceedings.

    The use of phone cameras has been vital in holding police accountable. Of course, not everything can be filmed, and this is precisely why LOs are so important. LOs are able to empower protesters and hold police accountable through their work.

    This vital role has more general applications too. Under section 60, police are able to stop and search people at will. Whilst LOs are trained volunteers who observe during protests, it is also good practice for passers-by to take note of police behaviour. CopWatch groups around the country also offer training on the best ways to do this.

    Deterrent

    The report also highlighted the effectiveness of LOs.

    One particular LO said:

    I’ve seen it where it’s been clocked that LOs are present and it’s changed how the police have decided to police. You can see it’s deterred them. You can see they are about to do something and [when] it’s pointed out they stop” (LO 1).

    As the Article 11 Trust said:

    Article 11 rights are the right to peaceful assembly and the freedom of association with others. It includes both the right to form and to join trade unions, and the right to gather for peaceful protest.

    In effect, LOs make protests safer for the people attending them. They observe and note police behaviour, and act as deterrents. LOs are supposed to be visible and able to do their work freely.

    From Freedom of Information requests to police forces around Britain, the report concluded:

    Forces around the country seemed to demonstrate varying levels of awareness and perceptions of LOs.

    This is a problem because police knowledge about LOs makes it easier for LOs to do their vital work.

    Discrimination

    In fact, some LOs shared their experiences of being discriminated against by the police. The report stated:

    Class, ethnicity, height and gender were identified as particular indicators of discrimination.

    One LO shared:

    I have been sexually and otherwise harassed multiple times by police officers, who seem to particularly enjoy doing so in front of protesters I am supporting.

    Another LO said:

    I feel that the way I’m treated by police (being patronised and dismissed, told I know nothing or officers suggesting I didn’t train as an LO) is often related to my gender and age (female and young). I have often experienced very different treatment by Police compared to male LOs who I’ve had equal training and experience to.

    LO 19 said:

    I’ve found police behaviour sometimes but not always varies according to how they perceive my gender. I’ve gotten in the habit of dressing very androgynously while LOing (in part to protect my identity), and especially with a facemask and hat on have found that Police are less likely to allow me to move through police lines and more likely to obstruct me if I’m dressed ambiguously.

    The report also quoted two members of Black Protest Legal Support, who said:

    “The Police’s interaction with Black and Brown protesters and Legal Observers alike has been starkly different to their interaction with white protesters”

    From the experiences of these LOs, it is very clear that they are often restricted from doing their jobs and observing police actions because police discriminate against them.

    Democratic society

    The report stated:

    The treatment of protest by police as a public order threat to be managed, leaves Article 11 Rights at risk.

    Article 11 rights protect the basic functions of a democratic society. Because legal observers are not uniformly or officially recognised, it’s difficult to monitor police attitudes and compliance. This is also why this report from Netpol and the Article 11 Trust is invaluable.

    LOs are not protestors, and police forces must recognise this. As the report says:

    the best way to protect Article 11 Rights to freedom of Assembly and Association is for Police forces to have a proper benchmark – like the Charter for Freedom of Assembly Rights – that sets out what a Human Rights based approach to protest policing should look like in practice.

    We all need to hold the police to account

    This independent monitoring is even more vital with the new protest powers in the PCSC Act and the authoritarian Public Order Bill that the government has just introduced. This bill brings together the defeated amendments from the PCSC Act and will further criminalise protest. The expansion of stop and search powers to protest-related offences is also in this bill.

    In an explainer about the new bill, Netpol highlighted the concerning inclusion of Serious Disruption Prevention Orders:

    Crucially – because you do not need to be convicted of an offence to be issued with one – Serious Disruption Prevention Orders actively encourage the expansion of police intelligence gathering on a range of social and political movements.

    This is just one of a number of areas for concern for protestors and anyone who dissents from government action. The expansion of stop and search powers is part of a wider move from the government to continue to target, spy on, and punish civil disobedience, which is the cornerstone of any democracy.

    The abuse of protestors and arrestees has been widely documented. Alongside this, what’s also documented is that success that can come from collective action and cop watching. Whether it’s communities coming together to stop immigration raids or to de-arrest people, or the scrutiny of LOs, we can hold police to account.

    Patel’s decision to lift restrictions and expand stop and search powers is yet another example of the government stripping away safety for protestors and, in particular, minorities who are likely to be stopped by the police. It’s also exactly why cop watching and legal observers are so very needed.

    Featured image via Flickr/Tyler Merbler, resized to 770×403, via Creative Commons by 2.0

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Video: Police block Palestine justice march

    Justice for Palestine Meanjin has vowed to defy police restrictions on the right to march at next year’s rally. A line of police blocked the road as activists marched “as hundreds of rallies” have done.

    Wrap up speech by organiser Phil Monsour at Nakba commemoration in Meanjin/Brisbane on May 13.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Right to protest lost for those who ‘threaten, harass and disrupt’, warns deputy PM

    RNZ News

    New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson has warned that although people have a right to protest when “they threaten, harass and disrupt people and a whole city they lose that right”.

    In a post on Facebook, Robertson — who is also Finance Minister and MP for Central Wellington where the five-day-old Parliament protest is happening — said he was contacted by many constituents this week who were distressed at what was happening in the city.

    “School pupils spat at and harassed for wearing a mask, roads blocked delaying public transport and emergency services and businesses shut down,” he said.

    Robertson said there had also been threats of violence against politicians and the media.

    The protester threats came as New Zealand had a record 454 community cases today — up on yesterday’s previous record — as omicron cases begin to surge.

    “Looking down on a protest that wants to hang me as a politician, a sign that compares the Prime Minister to the March 15th terrorist, calls for arrest and execution of me and other leaders you might understand why I believe the police need to move them on.”

    Robertson acknowledged that protest was an important part of democracy, but said that “like all freedoms it comes with responsibilities”.

    He said in the past he had led protests onto Parliament grounds and discussed with those involved that if they crossed certain lines they would be arrested.

    ‘Threatening a whole city’
    “I was always of the view that the cause or the issue was what mattered most, and we would strive to make our point, and then move on to live to fight another day,” he said.

    Robertson said people lose the right to protest when “they threaten, harass and disrupt people and a whole city”.

    Canada court orders end to trucks' bridge protest
    Canada court orders an end to the trucks’ bridge protest … the Canadian anti-mandate truckers “inspired” the New Zealand convoy and protest this week. Image: BBC screenshot APR

    He said the protesters at Parliament had been trespassed and needed to leave.

    Robertson thanked police for doing a difficult job in trying conditions and said it was up to them how they enforced the law.

    He said as Wellington Central’s local MP he had been in regular contact with police and the city council to support the rights of those in the capital “to go about their lives free from harassment and severe disruption”.

    “I am confident that this will happen, though it will no doubt take some time,” he said.

    Robertson said the high vaccination rates reassured him that the protesters only represented a small minority.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Jailed Insulate Britain activists told to pay £5k each for National Highways’ legal fees

    Nine activists from Insulate Britain were jailed for breaching High Court injunctions. They must now pay £5k each for National Highways’ claim for legal costs, judges have ruled. This amounts to a total of £45k to go towards the “excessive” legal bill.

    The protesters were sentenced on Wednesday 17 November. It came after they admitted to breaching an injunction by taking part in a blockade, during morning rush hour on 8 October, at M25’s junction 25.

    Sentences

    Ana Heyatawin and Louis McKechnie were jailed for three months. Meanwhile Ben Buse, Roman Paluch-Machnik, Oliver Rock, Emma Smart, Tim Speers and James Thomas received four-month sentences.

    Smart is currently on hunger strike whilst in prison:

    Ben Taylor was given a longer sentence of six months “to deter (him) from committing further breaches”. It came after justice Victoria Sharp described his submissions to the court on Tuesday as “inflammatory” and a “call to arms”.

    The judge, sitting with justice Martin Chamberlain, said there was no alternative to custodial sentences given that the group’s actions were so serious and they had made it clear they intended to further flout court orders.

    Insulate Britain protests
    Protesters from Insulate Britain block Great George Street in Parliament Square, central London (James Manning/PA)

    Exorbitant legal costs

    Myriam Stacey QC, representing National Highways, previously said the legal costs of the proceedings were just over £91k. And she had asked the court to order the protesters to pay.

    But in a written judgment after the hearing, the two judges ruled while it was fair to get the jailed activists to pay some legal fees, National Highways’ claimed costs were “excessive”.

    They found National Highways’ fees included sums for advice from two senior barristers, four junior barristers and extra fees for three barristers.

    Sharp said:

    Even bearing in mind the need to consider relatively extensive evidence… we consider that these costs were excessive

    The two judges also said it was not “reasonable” for three solicitors to attend the High Court hearing.

    Sharp and Chamberlain ordered each of the activists to pay £5k towards National Highways’ costs, making a total of £45k. The judges concluded:

    We would expect the claimant to enter into a dialogue with the defendants about how this liability is to be discharged

    Insulate Britain has said it intends to continue the protests, which have sparked anger among motorists and others affected by the blockades, until the government agrees to insulate homes.

    Preventing protest

    The High Court has so far issued five injunctions to prevent protesters from blocking roads.

    They include one injunction granted to Transport for London (TfL) and four to National Highways, banning demonstrations on the M25, around the Port of Dover and on major roads around London.

    The High Court granted TfL a civil banning order aimed at preventing protesters from obstructing traffic on some of the London’s busiest roads.

    Those who breach the injunctions could face a maximum penalty of two years in prison or an unlimited fine.

    Further committal proceedings are expected to be issued against other Insulate Britain protesters relating to protests on 27 October.

    A protest is planned at noon on Saturday 20 November to show solidarity with the activists in prison:

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • More than 500 arrested as Extinction Rebellion protests continue in London

    Police have arrested more than than 500 people during Extinction Rebellion’s protests in London.

    The environmental group began their ‘Impossible Rebellion’ action on 23 August. The Metropolitan Police said since the action began, as of 6.30pm on Saturday 4 September they had arrested 508 people.

    In a tweet that almost seemed to brag about the number, the Metropolitan Police Events account said:

    March For Nature

    It comes after another wave of demonstrations from Animal Rebellion and Nature Rebellion at Trafalgar Square on Saturday.

    The groups ‘stand in solidarity’ with Extinction Rebellion. They met at the London landmark during the afternoon for a “March For Nature”.

    Protesters could be seen in colourful costumes. And they held signs such as “The Amazon Rainforest Is At Tipping Point”, “Indigenous Emergency” and “Act Now”.

    Speeches took place, campaigners chanted, while a large pink octopus creation was paraded around.

    Animal Rebellion protests
    A colourful protest took place on Saturday (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

    Extinction Rebellion also shared clips on social media of campaigners sitting in the road and holding signs to block traffic across the capital.

    Heavy police presence

    Deputy assistant commissioner Matt Twist said nearly 2,000 officers have been involved in policing the activists every day.

    Twist told Times Radio on Friday 3 September:

    It’s not the numbers of protesters but it’s the level of serious disruption that they’re looking to cause, which is impacting on other Londoners.

    We’ve said right from the start, we know that Extinction Rebellion have the right to protest and the right to assemble.

    But what we also made clear is these are qualified rights and they have got to be balanced against the rights of the rest of London and Londoners, the people, the businesses, the communities who want to lawfully go about their business.

    Where we’ve seen cases of both very serious and totally unreasonable disruption looking to be caused, we have to take action and move in and make arrests.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Police apologise and pay damages to protesters supporting Bristol’s ‘Colston Four’

    Avon and Somerset police have issued an apology to four protesters they arrested for peacefully demonstrating in support of the ‘Colston Four’. The force has recognised that its blanket ban on protests and subsequent arrests of protestors was “unlawful”.

    On 25 January, Avon and Somerset Police arrested Ros Martin, Paula Richardson, Rolland Dye and Taus Larsen. The force issued them with fixed penalty notices (FPNs). It had issued a blanket ban on protests, warning that demonstrators could be given a £10,000 fine. Exercising their right to peaceful protest, the four individuals demonstrated outside Bristol magistrates’ court. This was to express solidarity with the Colston Four, the people accused of toppling slave trader Edward Colston’s statue during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.

    Unlawful arrests

    Martin and Richardson wrote messages of solidarity on the pavement using chalk. Dye held up a placard, and Larsen cycled around the area playing music. According to Bhatt and Murphy solicitors, they all “wore masks and practised social distancing”.

    In February, Martin told The Canary that police immediately arrested her. Moreover, they failed to follow recommended practice to engage, explain, and encourage those breaching lockdown rules to disperse. Martin said:

    I was alone at the time, there was no other protester, I had a mask on and socially distanced, wrote three words and was immediately arrested.

    In a statement made after Avon and Somerset police’s apology, Larsen said:

    The whole thing was ridiculous. I wasn’t posing any risk to the public, but the police put me in a position which increased the risk to me and to the officers dealing with me.

    Following a legal challenge, Avon and Somerset Police acknowledged that the force’s blanket ban on protests was unlawful. The ban was in breach of Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protect freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. As a result, the arrests and FPNs were also unlawful.

    According to solicitors Bhatt Murphy:

    The correct approach would have been to consider whether the individual protest was safe to proceed in its particular circumstances.

    ‘Vindicated’ in their right to protest

    A statement Avon and Somerset Police issued on 22 April said:

    we now accept we misinterpreted the regulations and that the arrests and the issuing of FPNs were unlawful.

    It added:

    We have apologised to them and explained officers’ actions were motivated purely by a desire to protect the health of the public at the height of the pandemic.

    The force has cancelled the fines for the four protesters. And it has payed compensation for their wrongful arrests in a “substantial” out of court settlement.

    Martin said:

    In the week that justice has been served for George Floyd, it is vital that the right to peaceful protest in support of the Colston 4 has prevailed. It is fundamental to our democracy. The locking up of peaceful protestors should never happen.

    Alex Raikes, director of Stand Against Racism and Inequality (SARI), said:

    It is welcome that the Chief Constable has apologised and that justice has been done for our clients. SARI supports peaceful, safe protest as it has been a key aspect throughout history for upholding and protecting human rights.

    What could this mean for other protests?

    Tony Murphy of solicitors Bhatt Murphy concluded:

    The Chief Constable’s acceptance that an outright ban on protest will never be lawful, including during a pandemic, is important. My clients regard chalking messages of solidarity on the pavement as a peaceful, safe and lawful form of in-person protest.

    According to lawyer Gus Silverman, this could be the first time a police force has admitted to unlawfully arresting protesters under coronavirus regulations. This is a significant ‘legal first’ in the wake of ‘brutal‘ policing of Kill the Bill protests in Bristol and elsewhere under coronavirus regulations.

    Featured image via Channel 4 News

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Thousands Take To The Streets Saying ‘Kill The Bill’

    Thousands took part in a weekend of action against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. The size and passion of the demos shows that people are willing to fight to stop this bill, which the Conservative government tried to sneak through under the cover of the coronavirus (Covid-19) health crisis.

    50 demonstrations were called across the UK.

    The proposed Police Bill is arguably the biggest attack on our freedoms since the Public Order Acts of the ‘80s and ‘90s. The controversial bill passed its second reading in parliament during March. The bill will give the police unprecedented draconian powers to arrest protesters, and will criminalise trespass, effectively outlawing the livelihoods of the UK’s Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) communities.

    The post Thousands Take To The Streets Saying ‘Kill The Bill’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Defend the right to protest, fight back against the police crackdown bill

    Our right to protest is under attack. Protest is being criminalised and it’s urgent that we act now before it’s too late.

    The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is being rushed through parliament. It will give the police powers to impose conditions on protests that they view as too noisy or cause “serious unease”.

    The Bill will ban protests that block roads around Parliament. It also allows the police to impose conditions on one-person protests. And it will introduce a new offence, punishable by up to ten years in prison, of ‘public nuisance’ for actions that cause “serious distress”, “serious annoyance”, “serious inconvenience”.  Yes, that’s right. If you cause serious annoyance on a protest, you could go to jail for a decade!

    Oh, and then there’s the ten year sentences for damaging a memorial or statue. Yep – you could get a longer sentence for damaging an inanimate object than the average sentence given to rapists.

    Home secretary Priti Patel doesn’t like protests. She thinks Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter protesters are ‘extremists’. She wants the police to take more action against anyone who dares to stand up to this government. 

    Meanwhile, a government report into policing is labelling anyone who takes direct action as an “aggravated activist”. It states that the police have gone too far in allowing protests to go ahead. It is also calling for increased surveillance, including the use of facial recognition technology on demonstrations.

    Make no mistake. This is the biggest threat to our freedom to protest that we’ve seen in generations. The police already abuse their powers. This new bill will give them unprecedented power to crackdown on protests. The UK has a long and proud history of protest. And it’s through taking to the streets that we’ve won many of the rights that we now take for granted.

    Our opposition to this bill cannot wait. We need to take action now before many of us end up behind bars for trying to make the world a better place.

    The Network for Police Monitoring is leading the fight against these extra powers with a charter that calls for the protection of protestors’ rights. Over 150,000 people have already supported the campaign to protect the right to protest.

    Get involved today and stop this bill becoming law!

    By Emily Apple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The old bill’s new bill

    Learn more about the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill here.

    Image description

    Under the heading “The Old Bill” is an illustration of a group of protesters carrying placards. The placards read ‘trans rights’, ‘climate justice’, ‘workers rights’, ‘BLM’, and ‘disability rights’. The police are illustrated dragging protests away and restraining them. Next to a restrained protester is a placard on the ground reading ‘rights 4 women’.

    Below this is the heading “The New Bill – *Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill”. This is illustrated with a prison and four protesters leaning out of the barred windows. They are holding signs reading ‘BLM’, ‘women’s rights’ and ‘workers unite’.

     

    By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Priti Patel’s new policing bill is threatening our right to protest

    Today marks the second reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill, which will increase police powers and allow them to clamp down on protests.

    The bill, spearheaded by home secretary Priti Patel, had already met with criticism, but has come under renewed scrutiny in the wake of police actions at the vigil for Sarah Everard on Clapham Common.

    During the gathering, police descended to break up the vigil, grabbing those present and arresting some. Their actions were widely criticised as “neither appropriate nor proportionate”.

    After initially being rumoured to abstain, Labour announced it would vote against the bill as it returns to the House of Commons, saying it imposes “disproportionate controls on free expression”.

    The bill

    The government first announced the bill on 9 March. At that time, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office said it would “strengthen police powers to tackle non-violent protests that have a significant disruptive effect on the public or on access to Parliament”.

    The legislation will amend the 1986 Public Order Act, making it much easier for the police to impose conditions on both marches and static protests. The 1986 Act limits when conditions can be placed on assemblies to protests that:

    may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community

    But the new bill gives the police power to impose:

    such conditions as appear to the officer necessary to prevent the disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation

    The bill will give the police power to impose conditions on protests based on the amount of noise they make. This allows police to intervene in protests where “noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation”.

    And the legislation also gives the home secretary the power, without parliamentary approval, to define “serious disruption” to communities. Police would then be able impose conditions using the definition.

    Further amendments will make it easier for protestors to be convicted for not complying with conditions placed on protests, saying a person will be “guilty of an offence” if:

    in the case of a public assembly in England and Wales, at the time the person fails to comply with the condition the person knows or ought to know that the condition has been imposed.

    Crucially in this section is the loose wording “ought to know”. Under current legislation, the police have to prove that a person was aware of the conditions in order to secure a conviction.

    Further powers

    The bill also expands sentencing powers for several offences. Damaging memorials will lead to a maximum ten year sentence, and the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker, which includes police officers, will be doubled to two years.

    Meanwhile, a new statutory offence of public nuisance will be created for actions causing:

    serious harm to the public or a section of the public.

    And the definition of “serious harm” includes actions that cause:

    serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity

    Anyone convicted of this offence faces up to ten years in jail.

    The police would also obtain further powers to remove “unauthorised encampments”, as well as criminalising trespass and expanding stop-and-search powers.

    One-person protests and protests near parliament that obstruct vehicle access could also be limited under the new laws.

    Opposition

    Several civil rights groups have already spoken out against the bill. Gracie Bradley, Liberty director, said it would threaten protests, and put marginalised communities at risk through the expansion of stop and search powers and criminalising trespass. She said:

    parts of this Bill will facilitate discrimination and undermine protest, which is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. We should all be able to stand up for what we believe in, yet these proposals would give the police yet more powers to clamp down on protest. They risk stifling dissent and making it harder for us to hold the powerful to account.

    Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International UK, said:

    The apparent excessive use of force by Met police officers is a stark and timely warning about precisely why Parliament must not allow yet more police powers to quash peaceful protest.

    The proposals being rushed through put enormous and unprecedented powers in the hands of the state to effectively ban even peaceful protests. If that happens, scenes like those this weekend will become more common.

    Kevin Blowe, campaigns coordinator for the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol), told The Canary:

    It is important we don’t forget that decades of criminal justice legislation had already created dozens of new offences and broad new powers that inevitably have since been reinterpreted and abused. As well as opposing this new bill, we need to start demanding a fundamental change in the policing of protests in Britain. This is why we today launched a new Charter for Freedom of Assembly Rights. We are demanding police respect existing international human rights standards – or explain why they refuse to do so.

    Netpol’s petition for the National Police Chiefs Council to adopt a charter protecting the right to protest has already gained over 115,000 signatures.

    Police and protests

    Priti Patel has condemned protestors from Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion previously and called for extended police powers to intervene in these protests.

    Many were shocked by the police’s intervention at the vigil for Sarah Everard, though as many others have pointed out, police have intervened disproportionately in protests before.

    A report by Netpol found that police used excessive force and disproportionately targeted Black protestors during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. Netpol further concluded that protests led by Black people “disproportionately faced excessive interventions” from the police.

    This bill will erode the right to protest in the UK, making it harder to stand up to power even through non-violent protests. It will encourage the behaviour displayed by the police at the weekend and at recent protests for racial justice and environmental action. It is therefore imperative that we all take action to ensure it isn’t passed and to ensure that we all have the right to protest.

    Featured image via Flickr/Andy Thornley & YouTube/Guardian News

    By Jasmine Norden

    This post was originally published on The Canary.