Tuesday, September 13, 2022
Not in my name
Sunday's Observer reported on the disturbing case of two protesters who expressed republican sentiments and who were aubsequently rrested at events proclaiming the accession to the throne of King Charles III.
The paper says that a man was arrested for shouting, “Who elected him?” when the proclamation was read out in Oxford, while in Edinburgh, a woman holding a sign saying, “Fuck imperialism, abolish monarchy” was arrested moments before the reading of the proclamation.
In today's Guardian, civil liberties campaigners and others were reported as expressing alarm about the response of police to anti-monarchy protesters after a number of incidents, the latest of which included the arrest of a man in Edinburgh for apparently heckling Prince Andrew.
The advocacy group Liberty said that new powers recently given to the police to curtail protest, and how they were being enforced by officers, were a cause for deep concern, this is particularly so given an incident involving a barrister and climate activist who held up a blank piece of paper in Parliament Square. He said he had been threatened with arrest by a police officer under the Public Order Act:
“He confirmed that if I wrote, ‘Not My King’ on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended,” the lawyer, Paul Powlesland, said on Twitter.
“A period of quiet mourning for the Queen is fine, but using that period to cement Charles’ accession as King and cracking down on any dissent to the accession as disrespectful is outrageous.”
Powlesland told the Guardian on Monday night that he had had quite a long discussion with the police who had stopped him, who were from Norfolk’s force. “I speak in a certain way, was dressed in a certain way and understood the law, but someone else might have been in a different situation,” he said.
“Normally, you can get into trouble for shouting, but if you have something written that is super-factual and which is not abusive, then you would normally think that you are protected. It’s pure free speech.”
“I think the idea that he could arrest me and that there could be a conviction under the Public Order Act was ludicrous, but interventions like that are having a chilling effect,” Powlesland added. “I didn’t hold up the sign in the end because I have to work tomorrow and could not afford to be detained. A lot of other people might simply be chilled into not protesting.”
The Guardian published an article yesterday in which they set out the current law on protest. It is clear that officers intervening by arresting dissenters do not fully understand what can and cannot be done, but if that is the case then they have been empowered to do so by the latest legislation:
In England and Wales the law was made stricter by the PCSC Act. The bill that preceded the act was criticised by civil liberties campaigners, parliament’s human rights committee, charities, academics, and two former home secretaries for being oppressive. While some concessions were made in the House of Lords following criticism, it was eventually passed. The most controversial elements with respect to protest were the widening of the police’s ability to place conditions on protests, including if they think they are too noisy.
The new act has been criticised for weakening the right to protest, and while it was not cited by the police in the above instances, Hill said that Thames Valley police initially said he had been arrested under the PCSC Act, before releasing a statement saying he was detained under the Public Order Act.
The government is now seeking to give police in England and Wales more powers to curb peaceful but disruptive protests though the public order bill, which has also been criticised.
I am not endorsing the protests against the monarchy at these events. A family and a nation is grieving and we need to respect this, but heavy handed interventions by the police are disturbing and are beginning to threaten the freedoms on which our democracy is built.
The paper says that a man was arrested for shouting, “Who elected him?” when the proclamation was read out in Oxford, while in Edinburgh, a woman holding a sign saying, “Fuck imperialism, abolish monarchy” was arrested moments before the reading of the proclamation.
In today's Guardian, civil liberties campaigners and others were reported as expressing alarm about the response of police to anti-monarchy protesters after a number of incidents, the latest of which included the arrest of a man in Edinburgh for apparently heckling Prince Andrew.
The advocacy group Liberty said that new powers recently given to the police to curtail protest, and how they were being enforced by officers, were a cause for deep concern, this is particularly so given an incident involving a barrister and climate activist who held up a blank piece of paper in Parliament Square. He said he had been threatened with arrest by a police officer under the Public Order Act:
“He confirmed that if I wrote, ‘Not My King’ on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended,” the lawyer, Paul Powlesland, said on Twitter.
“A period of quiet mourning for the Queen is fine, but using that period to cement Charles’ accession as King and cracking down on any dissent to the accession as disrespectful is outrageous.”
Powlesland told the Guardian on Monday night that he had had quite a long discussion with the police who had stopped him, who were from Norfolk’s force. “I speak in a certain way, was dressed in a certain way and understood the law, but someone else might have been in a different situation,” he said.
“Normally, you can get into trouble for shouting, but if you have something written that is super-factual and which is not abusive, then you would normally think that you are protected. It’s pure free speech.”
“I think the idea that he could arrest me and that there could be a conviction under the Public Order Act was ludicrous, but interventions like that are having a chilling effect,” Powlesland added. “I didn’t hold up the sign in the end because I have to work tomorrow and could not afford to be detained. A lot of other people might simply be chilled into not protesting.”
The Guardian published an article yesterday in which they set out the current law on protest. It is clear that officers intervening by arresting dissenters do not fully understand what can and cannot be done, but if that is the case then they have been empowered to do so by the latest legislation:
In England and Wales the law was made stricter by the PCSC Act. The bill that preceded the act was criticised by civil liberties campaigners, parliament’s human rights committee, charities, academics, and two former home secretaries for being oppressive. While some concessions were made in the House of Lords following criticism, it was eventually passed. The most controversial elements with respect to protest were the widening of the police’s ability to place conditions on protests, including if they think they are too noisy.
The new act has been criticised for weakening the right to protest, and while it was not cited by the police in the above instances, Hill said that Thames Valley police initially said he had been arrested under the PCSC Act, before releasing a statement saying he was detained under the Public Order Act.
The government is now seeking to give police in England and Wales more powers to curb peaceful but disruptive protests though the public order bill, which has also been criticised.
I am not endorsing the protests against the monarchy at these events. A family and a nation is grieving and we need to respect this, but heavy handed interventions by the police are disturbing and are beginning to threaten the freedoms on which our democracy is built.
Recent Tory legislation is just reinforcing the feeling that we are drifting towards a police state, and these actions by the police underline that, something that has to be stopped in its tracks.
P.S. the Guardian also points out that the Treason Felony Act 1848 is still be in effect, which means, technically, anyone calling for the abolition of the monarchy could be convicted of a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment. In reality, it has not been deployed in a prosecution since 1879, and given that a YouGov poll earlier this year found that 22% of people in the UK support abolishing the monarchy, they say that is probably good news for the beleaguered prison system.
P.S. the Guardian also points out that the Treason Felony Act 1848 is still be in effect, which means, technically, anyone calling for the abolition of the monarchy could be convicted of a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment. In reality, it has not been deployed in a prosecution since 1879, and given that a YouGov poll earlier this year found that 22% of people in the UK support abolishing the monarchy, they say that is probably good news for the beleaguered prison system.
