POLITICS | SOCIETY | JUSTICE

The War on Liberty

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — Priti Patel calls it an end-to-end criminal justice bill. I call it the end to freedom of expression.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is what nightmares are made of. Well, mine are anyway. It threatens to strip the British people of one of their most fundamental rights. There is only one thing we can do. Protest. Until we can’t that is…

We’ve all read dystopian novels like George Orwell’s 1984. Seen episodes from Black Mirror, but I always naively read and watched them from a point of detachment. In the firm knowledge that I was just a spectator of such ideologies. Believing that I was lucky enough to live in a society where the right to speak and live freely would always be upheld.

It was unimaginable to even suggest that any government sitting within number 10 would be so brazen as to attempt to curtail the fundamental right, that is to protest, to be heard.

Now I doubt my initial assessment entirely. They’re doing it and they’re doing it big.

What the hell is going on?

The new legislation gives way to more than one damning police power. The worst of which is the infringement on your right to peacefully protest. We’re not talking about anarchy, there needn’t be fire and broken glass. A one-person protest could be considered illegal by this legislation and could lead to large fines and even serious jail time, up to 10 years. All they need do is be an ‘annoyance’, whatever that is, suspiciously vague if you ask me.

The bulk of my concern comes from the section titled ‘Public Order’. It seeks to amend The Public Order Act 1986, which was brought about in the reign of Margaret Thatcher, a leader that no one remembers for weak policy…

The existing legislation already grants the police power to deal with protestors. I would argue it is already sufficient enough. They displayed this power at Sarah Everard’s vigil where they arrested four people.

Currently, they can stop protests when public health is at risk (which has been the case for COVID 19) or when there is a risk to public safety or national security. Also if they are preventing a crime, such as damage to property.

Apparently, they believe that this is insufficient. Mrs. Thatcher had not done enough. The amendments will criminalise protestors if they are too noisy. How are they defining too noisy you might ask? Like this.

“The noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession.”

This is troublesome. Isn’t impact the whole idea of a protest? In my view, protesting is an attempt to show your fellow countrymen that there’s a problem and that it needs change. If we have to do this quietly it seems hopeless. Or perhaps you disagree, perhaps silent protests will be an effective form of creating meaningful change within society. Nevertheless, I beg to differ.

It’s not just noisiness that’s being criminalised. It’s annoyance too. It seems they have redefined serious harm as “serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity.”

Questionable to say the least. In terms of a protest, any demonstration could easily be described as a serious annoyance. It’s subjective and therefore open to abuse. Ergo any protest can be shut down. All the police need do is suggest that someone is being annoyed and then they can make arrests with impunity.

It also increases the power of the Secretary of State. Which is currently Priti Patel. Not my favourite person. The bill states the following. “The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the meaning for the purposes of this section of — (a) serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or (b) serious disruption to the life of the community.”

The former Prime Minister Theresa May saw the issue with this. During the four-hour debate of the bill, she made a compelling speech regarding it. Highlighting how open to abuse it is and how dangerous it could be to grant such powers. She made a witty remark directed at Priti, about how tempting it is to give such power to the home secretary because we all think we are ‘reasonable’ but future home secretaries may not be. I would argue that our current home secretary is unreasonable enough.

She finishes by saying “There’s a need to walk a fine line between being popular and populist. Our freedoms depend on it.” Props to you Mrs. May. I have a newfound respect for the woman. Despite her best efforts though, I don’t think Mrs. Patel is going to be swayed on the issue. She knows what she is doing and it sits well with her.

What does this all mean in practice?

We won’t truly know the gravity of this bill until it is implemented. I doubt people will stop protesting. Instead, like a red rag to a bull, it will likely encourage people to make themselves heard.

Regardless though there will be a real impact on people’s lives. Fines and imprisonment alike.

It makes a mockery of justice

Take a look at the maximum sentences for other crimes. It is clear to see that this is disproportionate.

A 10-year maximum sentence is higher than the current maximum sentence available for common assault (6 months, unless racially aggravated, then it increases to 2 years), carrying a knife (4 years), ABH (5 years), and drink driving (6 months). The proposed 10-year maximum sentence is equal to the maximum sentence currently given to those found guilty of sexual assault of a person over the age of 13.

This is wrong. Does this mean that our society feels the same way about those who protest and those who commit sexual assaults? Even if the protest was horrendously annoying and loud, and blocked roads for weeks. I’m still happy to argue that sexual assault is miles worse than any inconvenience caused by a protest.

This bill isn't all bad, but that's not the point

It does do some good. It increases the prison time for child killers and it makes it illegal for sports coaches and religious leaders to have sexual relations with 16 and 17-year-olds. This is welcomed by many.

My theory behind this bill being so broad is it’s then easier to get it through the house. They can then make the argument that anyone who rejects the bill is against protecting children. It’s an easy way for the government to get MPs to vote through authoritarian police powers. This is their way of gaining the perceived moral high ground before they ask them to take away people’s human rights.

MPs are being heard, whilst we’re being silenced

After watching the four-hour bill reading in the house. It hit me. There’s a horrible irony to me listening to these people making their views heard on the issue. While they freely talk and propose change they are simultaneously removing such rights from the rest of us.

This is short-sighted. In the future, they may need to protest against some wrongdoing and be unable to do so. Leaving the country stagnated in social injustice.

To add insult to injury, Patel and Johnson shroud the true intentions of this legislation behind the rights and safety of women and girls. A tasteless lie. Don't let their rhetoric fool you. There is not one mention of the word woman, or girls within the entire 307-page bill. That tells you all you need to know.

Don't take my word for it

You might feel tempted to disregard me. Perhaps these are just the ramblings of a member of the tin hat brigade? This is not the case. Check out what David Lammy, MP for Tottenham had to say about in the House of Commons. He puts it nicely. Along with other members of the opposition who fortunately have stood against the bill. Including the leader of the Labour Party, Sir Kier Starmer. He has seen through the charade to hide cowardly behind women.

Despite the apparent opposition this bill is facing in the house, it has now passed its second reading. Now it will enter the committee stage. With a strong Conservative majority within parliament, it could be expected that this bill will pass, with little to no amendment.

There is always the chance that once it reaches the House of Lord’s it finds strong opposition.

We owe so much to protestors

Protests have been a hot topic in recent times. BLM has made headlines worldwide following the death of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

Most recently Londoners took to the streets to remember and honour the late Sarah Everard. People from all walks of life exercising their legal right to be heard. It’s not a new thing, far from it. Protests have shaped our world. Changed laws and created real change for centuries. They’re essential to a healthy democracy.

Imagine a world without the suffragettes. Women still lacking basic equality. Still barred from voting. We all know this is wrong now, but this was not always the case, it took endless campaigning and great resolve to achieve this state of normal that we all take for granted. An unachievable objective if they were subjected to this bill, for they would all surely have been imprisoned before they changed anything. Without the courageous acts of the women before us, women would still be deemed baby-making machines. With little use except cleaning the home and caring for children.

If this draconian bill was applied to the US then it would have prevented the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s. Schools would still be segregated. Black and white children unable to learn and thrive together. The protests led to the criminalisation of businesses discriminating against people based on colour. It opened up opportunities for millions of people. Gave hope to a people that had suffered oppression for far too long. It permanently improved the living conditions of millions of American people.

If Martin Luther King had not delivered his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech in Washington to over 200,000 people around the Lincoln Memorial then JFK may never have been pressured enough to create the civil rights legislation.

If people were prevented from protesting then the Berlin wall may still be up today. Its destruction was the result of hundreds of thousands of people protesting. They unanimously sent a message to the powerful. Enough is enough. Which culminated in them taking hammer and chisel to it themselves. Reuniting the east and the west for good.

Not all protests are a success

Governments ignore the will of the people. In some cases at their peril. Consider the protests against the Iraq war in 2003. Over a million people marched on London. United against the war.

Despite this possibly being the biggest protest in British history. Tony Blair decided to go ahead with the war anyway.

The Labour Party has never been re-elected since 2005. Some might say that this is because they are still not forgiven for ignoring the people.

If only they had listened. It turns out the protestors knew more than those within the walls of number 10.

These days the war is heavily criticised. It is deemed by many on both sides of the political spectrum a failure and a mistake. Both costly in taxpayers’ money and the lives of British soldiers.

Keep marching, these streets belong to us, not them

Protests have changed our world for the good of humanity. They have improved life for us all. Without them, we would be living in the dark ages. We owe it to the protesters before us and in the future to defend this liberty with everything we have. Don’t let the powers that be convince you that they are just a noisy annoyance that we could all do without. We can’t.

April 2021

Delilah Brass