Sometimes someone else summarises an issue better than you can. This is the Good LawProject writing about Priti Patel's new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021. As they note:
The Home Secretary, in particular, doesn't seem to like dissenting voices — nor does she want to engage with the root causes of these protests, preferring instead to brand protesters “so-called eco-crusaders turned criminals” and to accuse them of “hooliganism and thuggery”.
The Government's proposed solution? To clamp down hard on the right to protest. The Bill as it stands would give sweeping new powers to the police to restrict peaceful protests — including by giving them the powers to set conditions on the duration of protests, set maximum noise levels, and put restrictions on where protests can take place. As it seems to us, the very purpose of the right to protest is to enable people to register their profound unhappiness or strength of feeling in a way which compels the State to respond. To legislate so that right cannot have any impact is to legislate it out of meaningful existence.
The disproportionate measures proposed in the Bill also risk undermining the freedom of assembly and association protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.
Will the government worry about such a breach? Hardly: breaching human rights is its aim.
Undermining democratic freedoms is also its aim.
And finding flimsy foundations for prosecution is another. Under the terms of the proposed Act causing ‘serious annoyance' to another person can be punishable by up to ten years in prison. Look at section 59 if you doubt me.
This is not about justice. Nor is it about protecting anyone. This is about suppressing those organisations like Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter who are seeking to change our country, for the better. This could also, of course, be used against otherwise legal picketing.
This is not the work of a government seeking to provide the appropriate checks and balances that are essential to a functioning democracy. This is the work of a government that wishes to outlaw protest, which by its very nature is an expression of serious annoyance at the action of others who will, also by its very nature, be seriously annoyed as a result. By definition this makes protest very difficult, if not impossible as a consequence. It will always be possible to find someone who will say they have been annoyed by it. Ten years in prison then follows.
This is the work of a fascist state. I would like to describe it otherwise. I do not think that possible. When a state has the right to have someone imprisoned for being seriously annoying a line had been crossed. We will have crossed it if the Act becomes law, as no doubt and inevitably, it will.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
She’s being a bit wishy-washy isn’t she? She should get lessons from the SNPs Hate Crime Bill. It looks like even thinking about objecting to something could be considered hate and put you in court.
That’s not how I read it
What about the SNP’s Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, which will undermine and potentially remove the right to freedom of expression? Why haven’t you mentioned that?
Stirring up hatred will become a crime, so anyone who potentially causes offense could be charged.
Seems a lot worse than limiting where people can protest, which is not a human right, and preventing protests causing serious disruption to the community.
This is a controversial act, I am well aware
Maybe you did not notice the late amendments though?
No, of course these two haven’t read the amendments — the Scottish law now passed says there has to be intent to stir up hatred and this has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and corroborated.
Precisely
Somewhat different from being annoying, I think
To which I plead guilty, by the way
Even with the amendments, the Scottish acts are far more dangerous to the right to freedom of expression than the UK one.
So I’m just wondering why you’ve brought one up, and not the other?
And labelled the UK a fascist state because of it. I assume then Scotland is as well?
I see sag=feguards in the Scottish Act
I see none in this Bill
There are no safeguards in the Scottish bill – intent is a very loose term.
It could easily be argued that what you’ve said on this blog – accusing the government of being fascist and democide etc would fall foul.
The UK bill brings various forms of regulation into line, and doesn’t prevent protest EXCEPT when it impinges on other people’s rights.
I suppose if you support the Scottish bill, but don’t the UK bill it basically shows that all you really care about is political point scoring.
Hope you are ready for the inevitable complaints about your behavior and language under the new Scottish laws!
Actually, having to prove intent is very hard
You are wrong
And when protest is illegal because it annoys someone it most certainly does prevent protest
So, let me assume you’re a fascist then
How does arguing something else is worse dilute the argument. I don’t see it does.
The Scots Common law of Breach of the Peace which has not been repealed but been in force for many centuries is much more restrictive than the new Act.
Have you read this new law?
Agree. Also worth noting that one has now to have an exit permit in the UK, which was introduced without legislation. The Chinese, by contrast, are legislating for a similar power in Hong Kong from August 1.
This is a very Conservative English approach. I do have an sneaking admiration for the French attitude to protest,…i.e blockade the roads and burn everything.
Pity we as a nation do not adopt that attitude more often, to keep the elite on their toes.
Pitchforks and guillotines were required time to time to keep the ruling classes in line and served as a “warning to the others.”
I do recall even the placid Meryn King saying that after the 2008 banking crash that he was amazed that there were not bodies hanging off lampposts in the City. We are a very tolerant nation on the whole.
You know, when I was younger, many moons ago, I was a huge fan of Michael Moorcock the science fiction/fantasy writer. In one particular series of books concerning one aspect of his eternal champion series the protagonist is called Hawkmoon, and he faces off against the evil empire of…Gran Britan. After some apocalyptic event they have become all powerful, they all wear masks, they are split into different castes, each one called an order, and symbolised by their own mask depicting an animal.
Very out there at that time, but it looks like certain things are coming true. Oh, they had built a silver bridge across a body of water, which although never stated, I presume was the English channel as the Camargue was where a lot of the action was set.
Does this mean the whole cabinet can be thrown in jail because I find them seriously annoying? It seems to me there is going to be nobody left on the streets.
Welcome to HM Prison – the whole UK. Lockdown was just practice for lock-up
This is simply Lèse-majesté.
There is nothing new or turn to fascism about it – it has ALWAYS been as such except the glorious 30 years since the end of WW2, which was grudgingly yielded, with perfidious intent to claw back the freedoms and security claimed by the masses that the aristos have always enjoyed. It has taken them 50 years from the activation of their agents in the ranks in the 70’s to today’s BrexShit.
Every time they are challenged through history , they institute ‘reform’ which always means and ends in re-enforcement of status quo.
We are in the Dominate.
Anglo Imperialism is in its final generations. A little wiki to help understand that exactly:
‘ the Dominate is considered to have been more authoritarian, less collegial and more bureaucratic than the Principate from which it emerged.’
Lese Majeste is not confined to the copycat Theocratic Monarchies, dressed in bloody sheepskin of ‘Democracy’ & ‘Parliament’ and ‘Blind Justice’ & ‘Academia’ etc, that we have instituted across the Nation States , we have created in our model , across the planet and through the centuries. It has its roots in a continuous history through Europe.
Salami sliced history for the masses is how they can sell us such lies and fairytales, such as Money Doesn’t Grow on Trees and Taxpayers Money and Pesky Foreigners Coming to Take away what is Mine. And the latest iterations of Identity Politics and fake neo-religionism to bamboozle the children with controlled green Revolution…
There is a response.
It ends if necessary with the permanent elimination of these aristocracies and their wannabes and institutional controls , incase they are yet again able to attempt to reconnect with their ancient history, than elimination it has to be, not some short term eradication.
But before that, the response starts with reprogramming OURSELVES – the minions of these demigods.
We disrespect their claim to such rights. We look them in the eye and call them naked emperors. We demand they are no better then the rest of us and offer them no subservience. We outlaw such behaviour. We draw their faces on walls and streets and deface and walk all over them and we make sure the mercenaries they enrol from our own families, friends and neighbours are under no illusion about the divinity and supposed infallibility of their Masters, as they train their weapons upon us, their kith and kin.
That above all is what the parasites fear the most- because without their praetorians they are NOTHING.
The controlled Opposition is never going to lead down that path when it’s raison d’être is to diffuse exactly that mood.
So I suggest we plan and prepare for such ‘street’ activity and set uo the underground cells that will be the only means of the the next generation to organise and revolt.
So we must do something about it, rather than despair: build alternative political parties to those that currently inhabit Westminster and give voice to our human rights by protesting this bill. In the end, of course, there will be massive protests on the streets, however the government tries to contain them.
It is, perhaps, actually worse than you indicate, Richard.
Take Section 55.3 (b) which – for Scotland alone – gives the senior police officer (rank unspecified), making regulations for an authorised public demonstration, power to specify maximum numbers participating. Apart from the concept being a direct negation of the right to protest/demonstrate, it is very obviously aimed at the increasingly huge public demonstrations of support for Scotland’s Independence. This legislation is an attack on political freedom of the most brazen kind.
And Section 59? Check out 59.2 (d) which extends the offence punishable by fine or imprisonment of up to 1 year on summary conviction and up to 10 years and/or fine on indictment, to putting a person “at risk” of suffering “serious annoyance” or even “serious inconvenience”. Not even actually experiencing it, but merely judged to be “at risk” of it! How such bizarre offences are to be proved fogs me. I am old enough to remember “Mr Growser” in Children’s Hour “Toytown” with his dyspeptic, repeated growl “It ought not to be allowed!” – but I’m afraid this is not really funny.
Struggling through the pages and pages of these proposals, perhaps most disturbing element is to reflect on the professional expertise and hours of lawyerly, skilled drafting expended on these proposals. We have, at the centre of our state, “significant” numbers (the drafters are extremely keen on this qualifier) of functionaries, blameless professionals, who, as part of their ‘normal’ salaried occupation, can draw up such cummulative threats to our liberties, and toddle home/switch off their PCs to continue their ‘normal’ lives – just as though they bore no responsibility for what they have prepared.
They are , of course, only doing their jobs – but it makes some memories stir.
Thank you for pointing out 55.3
Wow!
Aren’t our prisons over crowded enough already?
We are well on the way on a slippery slope to being a failed state and gathering speed fast.
I will cut straight to the chase.
Even the Tories are aware that their beloved “free market” is a busted flush that doesn’t deliver for many if not most people.
They assume that the solution is tobatten down any inconvenient hatches.
Fortunately, the key lies with the younger generations who will not, I think ( rather than suspect), tolerate the coming chain of potential environmental, climate, economic and social disasters.
We do not have the forces big enough – police or military – to quell serious levels of country wide civil unrest should it occur, and with the current experience of our student body during the pandemic, plenty of future middle class dissatisfaction.
A potent mix.
I see a number of negative comments regarding the Scottish Hate Crime Bill. So I did a little research.
First, this bill appears to be the culmination of an exercise that began around 6 years ago.
There was an independent review of Hate Crime Legislation that took place in August of 2017, and its findings are available on the GovScot website. There are 3 formats: Full version, aimed at technical, legal audience. A non-technical version (general reader, with no specialist legal knowledge). And an easy read version using simple language and pictures.
Along with this there were a number of focus groups: Scottish Older People’s Assembly; Cross-party group on disability: a Fairness, Race, Awareness and Equality group; A Hate Crime mini conference; The Scottish Association for the Study of Offending; an Identity and Belonging Conference; a presentation and focus group for the gypsy/traveller community; the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights; Dumfries and Galloway Equalities Partnership; West of Scotland Regional Equality Council.
There was another public consultation between November 2018 and February 2019, which received over 1000 responses, and 400 people attending 10 consultation events held in: Inverness, Lockerbie, Stornoway, Dundee, Galashiels, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Shetland and Stirling.
ScotGov: “We will analyse the responses and consider them in the shaping of our Hate Crime Bill. We will publish our analysis of the consultation in summer 2019.”
The results from this consultation were made publicly available in June of 2019.
From this background I conclude that the current Bill is an expression and codifying of majority Scottish will, regarding the civil society they want to live in.
The Bill was passed after debate and amendment: 82 votes ‘for’ – 32 votes ‘against’ – 4 abstentions.
The debate also recognised that a recent surge in interest in including a gender specific dimension to the legislation was valid, and because it was too important an issue to decide on the basis of amendments, the matter was referred for further consultation.
On this basis, is there any comparison with the GovUK legislation?
No, none at all
If s59 becomes law you are at risk:
You have published this blog: This is an act for the purpose of s.59
To a section of the public: That large section of the public who read your blog
You have said that section 59 is the “work of a fascist state”. This statement is likely to cause serious annoyance to a section of the public (people who support the government).
There is, at the least, a risk of this, which is all that is needed for s59 to be complete.
You have been reckless as to the consequence, haven’t you? Your reasonable excuse (if any) can only be tested in court.
The common law offence of public nuisance has never been converted to statute for good reason. No reasonable government would do it.
Keep up the good work, Best wishes, Tristram Hicks
I am aware of the risk.
My wife and I had a serious discussion on whether staying in the UK, or England as it is likely to be, is a viable long term option last night.
Now you know why I want Scottish independence.
I have been planning my exit since the election in 2015, having seen the systematic destruction of the protections of the criminal justice system (which I devoted my life to preserve as a senior police officer) since 2010. My residency in the EU is pending but I have moved as much as I can out of England. You are not alone. Best wishes, T
Am I missing something – surely you can’t “undermine” the European Convention on Human Rights? The proposed legislation just looks like a prima facie breach of it? In which case if MPs are so supine as to allow this to get to the statute book then we need to get all American and do what they do with contraventions of a written constitution – get it struck down through the courts. Isn’t it about time we learned that our membership of the ECHR is closest thing we have to a codified bill of rights, and to use it against the govt if necessary?
But the government are also seeking to deny us that right
The English government are planning to ‘reform’ the Human Rights Act.
In other words, they are going to scrap it and make their own version, if that doesn’t scare the bejeezers out of people I don’t know what will.
Scotland has a Human rights Commission, but needs independence in order to
fully protect peoples’ human rights. The Tories starve little children, and remove fundamental human rights from people already by denying them basic needs like food, heating and shelter.
Patel’s bill, act or law or whatever, seems to be straight out of 1984, but worse.
She is a very annoying sociopath of the most dangerous type, terrifying. In fact her plan sounds like the witch trials, where someone simply accusing another of not complying with religious doctrine or authority, meant persecution of innocents, with horrific consequences.
The UK is not a country, but four nations. Any nations rejecting fascism for their children and grandchildren had better escape real quick!
Repealing the Human Rights Act doesn’t mean we’re not signatories to the ECHR. Attacking the HRA is typical piece of Tory stupidity like them thinking being outside the EU carried the benefits of being in it. It just means cases end up in Strasbourg. We must defend the HRA, but keep an eye of attempts to derogate from the ECHR overall. That’s the serious danger.
[…] week the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill goes back before Parliament. The whole purpose of that Bill is to remove the right to protest in this country. Of course the […]
Does the Act of Union not prevent the English Gov’t from changing Scots Law?
If this passed there goes YES marches and All Under One Banner peaceful protests.
That is one of the aims of it, you can be sure
I have fought against this denial of human rights since 2013 at Barton Moss in Salford (Put BM protests in a search engine) and have slowly watched it being eroded ever since. The government and business actually tried the civil rout first but I defeated that at the Court of Appeal in 2019:
https://www.leighday.co.uk/latest-updates/news/2019-news/anti-fracking-campaigners-win-appeal-on-the-right-to-protest/
However, the people working with the intelligence agencies then, to try and create those laws are the same people who lead Extinction Rebellion. About 95% of those involved with ER have no idea the leaders are using them to create laws. How do I know? Well the same people were in the Anti-fracking movement doing exactly the same until I defeated it. Furthermore, it was just three weeks after my successful challenge that ER shut down London for two weeks, coincidental? Certainly not. These people have been infiltrating all environmental and social justice movements since 2011 when they congregated at Occupy LSX.
I don’t like the fact, that people are connecting ER and BLM to this bill because Patel, started pushing for it right after those ER protests in May 2019, long before BLM protests.
I am sorry – but whilst I fully accept all social movements of consequence are infiltrated – and I think that they are – to say that all social movements are part of a conspiracy as a result is wrong
That way lies madness
And defeat
But do look out for the interlopers – because they are real, I admit
Hi Richard, I’m not saying “that all social movements are part of a conspiracy as a result”. Of course, you would highlight that, because it is that infiltration that enhances the Green agenda. .In 2011, when the climate camp disbanded the aim of individuals involved was to try ‘new radical experiments to tackle the intertwined ecological, social and economic crisis’. Climate camp was full of agents, so from there, they infiltrated social movements, to further their green new deal, including diverting activists to Extinction Rebellion, with the beginning of this process at Occupy LSX.
As I said above, we are talking about one hundred agents, not the movements being a conspiracy themselves.
I am sorry – but to suggest that agents enhance the green agenda is simp,y not true in my opinion
Of course there are some
Get over it
Win anyway