With UK police under fire, Boris Johnson pushes new bill that could end peaceful protests
London (CNN)The UK government is attempting to justify flagship legislation that critics say would hand the police and ministers powers that could seriously curb the ability of citizens to protest, at a very difficult time.
Uncomfortably
for Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the legislation is being debated in
Parliament this week, just days after officers from London's
Metropolitan Police physically restrained attendees at a peaceful
demonstration mourning the death of a young woman, Sarah Everard.
Disturbing images of police forcing women to the ground have led to
public outrage. The man accused of killing Everard is a serving member
of the same police force.
The
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 is several hundred pages
long and covers an enormous range of issues that one might typically
expect a government to address in multiple pieces of legislation.
Tuesday will be the second day of its second reading in the House of
Commons.
At the top of a fact sheet for the bill on the government's website, Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is quoted as saying that ever since the Extinction Rebellion climate change protests in London,
police forces have needed "change to powers and to legislation that
would enable the police to deal better with protests" that "are not
primarily violent or seriously disorderly," but "had an avowed intent to
bring policing to its knees and the city to a halt."
The
bill proposes new conditions on "one-person protests," which would
enable police to end the demonstration of a single person if the "noise
generated by the person carrying on the protest may result in serious
disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in
the vicinity of the protest." This, in theory, could mean someone
protesting outside the headquarters of a private company could be moved
along if their protest disrupts the activity of that private company.
The
bill also suggests, in somewhat vague language, that demonstrations and
protests should not "intentionally" or "recklessly" cause "public
nuisance." That, the bill states, might include an act that "obstructs
the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a
right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large."
The ambiguity of the bill has sounded alarm bells for critics, ranging from human rights lawyers to lawmakers.
"The powers in this bill could have been used against the suffragettes. Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter might have upset people,
but protests are supposed to," said Diane Abbott, a high-profile
opposition member of parliament. "We would be living in a very different
society if the suffragettes hadn't been able to protest."
Another
controversial feature of the bill has been the focus on issues that
could be considered part of the UK's ongoing culture wars. In a section
covering damage of land or property, it makes specific mention of
"monuments" in a clear reference to a public spat over statues of colonialists being damaged during last summer's BLM protests.
Climate
activists protest outside the Supreme Court, during the eleventh day of
demonstrations by the climate change action group Extinction Rebellion,
in London, on October 17, 2019.
Protestors
hold placards during a protest calling for the removal of the statue of
British imperialist Cecil John Rhodes outside Oriel College at the
University of Oxford on June 9, 2020.
Steve
Peers, professor of human rights law at the University of Essex, fears
that handing police greater powers to cancel certain demonstrations and
single out specific types of behavior could "easily risk delegitimizing
an issue being protested against with the authorities seemingly coming
down clearly on one side of an issue." Peers adds that the UK's sudden
cracking down on protests and free speech seems very strange in the
context of this government's criticism of China's behavior in Hong Kong.
The
specific inclusion of monuments has caused many to point out a notable
exclusion from this enormous piece of legislation that touches so many
areas of law. At no point in the bill do the words "women" or "woman"
appear.
This
is particularly unfortunate, given much of the UK has been grieving the
disappearance and death of a woman in London. Everard, 33, went missing
on March 3 after leaving a friend's house in the early evening. Her
remains were found nearly two weeks later. Everard's death has prompted a
wider public conversation about the violence, harassment and
intimidation that women face, including at the hands of police.
On
Saturday, thousands of people gathered near where she'd gone missing,
both to grieve and highlight the treatment of women. As the peaceful
demonstration extended into the evening, arguments broke out with
police, who were demanding that attendees disperse due to coronavirus
restrictions. Things then turned very ugly, as officers were filmed and
photographed physically dragging people away and into police vans.
The
timing, therefore, of a wide-ranging bill that makes greater criminals
of those who deface statues of slave owners but makes no mention of
gender-based violence could hardly be worse.
"The
priorities of this bill are entirely wrong -- suggesting bigger
punishment for damaging a memorial than rape," Sarah Jones, the
opposition Labour party's shadow police minister, told CNN. "There's no
concerted action to tackle violence against women and girls, at a time
when rape convictions are at an all-time low, and the bill does nothing
to tackle street harassment."
Downing Street referred CNN's list of questions about the bill to the Home Office, which declined to respond.
Police officers form a cordon at the Everard vigil in London on March 13.
Of
course, the government didn't know that events would collide in such a
way. However, legitimate questions can be asked as to why such a
comprehensive bill failed to mention such prevalent issues.
"The
government clearly thought it was playing clever politics by making the
bill so huge it could include their culture war points about statues
but also stuff about getting tougher on child abusers. They thought it
would make it impossible for us to oppose," says Jess Phillips, shadow
minister for domestic violence and safeguarding. "Instead, they've
written a bill that tells women more about how they may not protest
violence against women than how we are protected from that violence."
On
Monday evening, the government seemed to acknowledge that it had a
problem when it announced new measures to keep women safe that would
involve more CCTV surveillance and undercover police in bars and nights
clubs. The announcement, however, seemed somewhat tone deaf, given the
current levels of anger at the police and a recent scandal in which
undercover officers abused their positions to such an extent they had
long-term sexual relationships with women under false identities.
The
bill, the scenes from the weekend and the issues that the UK is dealing
with are extremely unedifying for the country. On one hand, the bill
suggests that the government and police are responding to criticism with
a power grab.
"The
tabling of the bill does seem to support the idea that people in
authority are struggling to proportionately react to protests that
directly challenge their image as protectors of society. Both Black
Lives Matter and the demonstration at the weekend directly condemn the
police. We know from a range of academic research that people respond
violently when their self-image is threatened and they seek to regain
control," said Francis Dodsworth, senior lecturer in criminology at
Kingston University.
On
the other, the government claims it is merely trying to update laws in
order to allow modern demonstrations to take place safely. They point to
the fact that a separate piece of legislation specifically looking at
violence against women and girls is being worked on.
Regardless
of intentions, the reality is that the UK government is currently
placing before parliament a piece of major legislation that says more
about a criminal who defaces a statue than assaults a woman. Which,
given the very raw emotions and divisions in the country at the moment,
will raise very important questions if amendments are overturned and
Prime Minister Boris Johnson continues, with little good reason, to
press for these laws to be passed sooner rather than later.
As
Philips put it: "There is absolutely no need to rush this through now.
And doing so sends a clear message: statues of dead men matter more in
Britain than living women."
No comments