I posted this Twitter thread this morning:
Like many, I was shocked by the arbitrary arrest of protestors suggesting that King Charles III was not their choice of head of state yesterday. Support the monarchy or not, the issue of free speech is fundamental to all our freedoms. A thread….
The UN Declaration of Human Rights, put in place in 1948 with support from the UK provides very clear indication that these arrests are a breach of human rights.
Article 19 says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
That is unsurprising given Article 18, the core element of which says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
These rights are reinforced by Article 9, which says:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Remember why it was thought so important to express these human rights. The world had just lived through the horror of fascism. It had seen what totalitarian regimes did to those who protested. It was determined that dissent should be allowed so that democracy might flourish.
What the Declaration made clear was the right to dissent was fundamental to our freedom. And what the Declaration also made clear was that we had the right to express that dissent, whoever we might be, and that we should be able to do so without fear.
Of course those preparing the Declaration knew when saying this that some who might dissent would express inconvenient views that might offend some. That's why it had to be said that they had the right to do so.
And then we come to yesterday. A monarch has been put on the throne without any form of consent by the people of the country being required, and without an alternative choice being made available contrary, I suggest, to Article 21 of the Declaration.
The first key part of Article 21 says:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
The second crucial element of Article 21 says:
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
And yet in the UK we have a monarch who acts not just as Head of State but who also plays a fundamental constitutional role, with a right to hear and be heard before consenting to legislation, whose appointment involves no such process of popular consent.
The UK does not, as a result, provide the people of this country (who are subjects and not citizens as a result of this arcane system where the monarch is our feudal liege lord and we are their vassals) with the human rights we should enjoy.
Worse, it now seems that our human right to object to this abuse has been removed, and we might be subject to arbitrary arrest for doing so.
What is there to conclude? It is that in the UK not only do we have an unacceptable system of government in that what we have clearly contravenes international standards of acceptability, but that we may not say so for fear of arrest.
Now let me loop you back to 1948 and remind you why these human rights were declared inviolate. It was precisely to stop oppressive regimes from preventing those from within their borders the right to protest about the form of government they suffered.
That is now where we are. People are being denied the right to dissent by a UK government intent in removing our human rights, our equal right to participle in democracy, and our freedom to protest, whilst granting the power of arbitrary arrest to the police.
Today's royalists taking offence might be those arrested tomorrow. That's what happens when there is arbitrary power that does not respect human rights. They should be as worried as I am.
We have a regime of precisely the sort the visionaries who drafted the UN Declaration on Human Rights sought to protect us from, and politicians of exactly the type they knew might re-emerge when the lessons of history were forgotten.
Worry, a lot. Your freedom depends on dissenting from the oppression that our government is imposing, contrary to our internationally declared human rights.
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:
This is a snip from a Guardian article yesterday:
“In London, a barrister and climate activist who had held up a blank piece of paper in Parliament Square 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.”
That should make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.
(Search term for link to source: anti-monarchy-protester-charged-with-a-breach-of-the-peace-edinburgh-queen-death-king)
You think the UK has it bad? We have political prisoners now, and a DOJ that is absolutely out of control…not to mention the FBI. Oh, and we have the ignoramus sitting as president. We’ve become a 3rd world idiocracy.
Either I’ve fallen through a time-warp, or you forgot the irony tags.
The problem with the UN declaration is that it is out of date.
Conceived to deal with fascism, it was pushed aside when the Americans insisted that communism was the real threat and thus ushered in an era of intellectual ignorance.
And that meant that fascist techniques could be used to denounce communism instead, introducing, entrenching and legitimising fascist tendencies and methods in Western democracies. We now use those techniques on each other, and it’s called ‘adversarial politics’.
So, what you get is mass orchestrated forced public reactions to events that pretend to be spontaneous, organic ‘Gemeinschaft’ events. Everyone is supposed to be thinking the same (Group think) or people feel pressured to think the same and be in agreement. But of course, they are not.
The Nazis knew of course that everyone does not think the same (that’s why they had the Gestapo) and so does Liz Truss and people like Trump/Erdogan and Bolsonaro.
That’s the way I see it. Fascism got let in by the back door. That’s why the UN declaration of human rights has weathered so badly. Fascism rules.
The UN Charter may be out of date but the basic principles of human rights it expounds still stand both morally for international law and should be abided by. The UK government does not have a leg to stand in its abuses such as arbitrary deportation of migrants o Rwanda, barring cross channel boats, and risking innocent people drowned, and now these banner holders being subject to arrest.
The point I am making is that with fascism so rife in the world, the UN Charter is effectively ignored.
When the the UN Rapporteur For Human Rights visited the UK in 2019 looking at extreme poverty this was his initial summary:
“The Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, undertook a mission to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 5 to 16 November 2018.
Although the United Kingdom is the world’s fifth largest economy, one fifth of its population (14 million people) live in poverty, and 1.5 million of them experienced destitution in 2017. Policies of austerity introduced in 2010 continue largely unabated, despite the tragic social consequences. Close to 40 per cent of children are predicted to be living in poverty by 2021. Food banks have proliferated; homelessness and rough sleeping have increased greatly; tens of thousands of poor families must live in accommodation far from their schools, jobs and community networks; life expectancy is falling for certain groups; and the legal aid system has been decimated.
The social safety net has been badly damaged by drastic cuts to local authorities’ budgets, which have eliminated many social services, reduced policing services, closed libraries in record numbers, shrunk community and youth centres and sold off public spaces and buildings. The bottom line is that much of the glue that has held British society together since the Second World War has been deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos. A booming economy, high employment and a budget surplus have not reversed austerity, a policy pursued more as an ideological than an economic agenda.”
So ,what has changed since then?
The U.N is also the place where Israel gets told off for how it is handling issues in Palestine but where the U.S. vetoes action?
Bill – this is not about point scoring – I’m just reinforcing what is actually happening in the world.
We’re failing Bill. That’s what is happening. We are failing as a species.
I understand your point
But it does not undermine the validity of the UNDHR
There’s a short Noam Chomsky quote on this. He says “You either believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like, or you don’t believe in freedom of speech. Hitler believed in freedom of speech for views he liked, so did Stalin. Either you believe in freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, or you don’t believe in freedom of speech.”
Clearly we have a big problem in this country with intolerance of dissent. Let’s hope we can do something about it before it gets worse. The left could help by continuing to debate with hard-right opinion instead of trying to shut down debate or avoid it. By that, I mean keep being brave and arguing with those you disagree with.
It’s become exhausting at this point, but the royalists need to see that there are people who don’t agree with them, and the republicans need to see who their allies are, so they can feel brave enough to speak out themselves.
Firstly I am a great admirer of Noam Chomsky. He expresses the concept of belief in freedom of speech beautifully and eloquently.
I am horrified that someone has been arrested for expressing their view ‘Not my King’…or similar. Possibly it is seen to be at a somewhat inconvenient time and thus showing lack of respect. However, as a parallel, strikes by workers can only be effective when they cause inconvenience…otherwise they would be ignored.
I fail to see why holding a placard up saying ‘Not my king’ is any different to holding up a union flag or a placard saying ‘long live the king’. Surely both express a view/opinion? Why would – or should – you be arrested for peacefully expressing either view? In the case of the arrests for expressing an anti-royal sentiment, the cases should be thrown out of court. To do otherwise contravenes freedom of speech and suggests we really are moving towards a fascist or authoritarian/ totalitarian state. I truly hope, for the sake of the individuals and the ‘soul’ of our supposedly democratic nation that the cases are dismissed by the courts. Let’s see!
My granddaughter was asking about the Magna Carta at the weekend.
I have a copy of a book called a young person’s guide to 800 years in the fight for freedom.
“Personal freedoms such as the right to free speech, a fair trial, political representation and peaceful protest were yesterday celebrated as having begun 800 years ago after the English barony grew tired of having their wealth taxed by the King for his failed French wars without first being asked for their approval.”
That was June 16th 2015, at Runnymede. Some MPs have such short memories.
Clearly now, when protesting, simply to have a blank placard is a political statement and may cause a police officer to assert offence. So bring them on everyone, a protest rally with blank placards would say it all.
Perhaps a good idea but I fear it would go over the heads of most people, while leaving the hostile press a – literally – blank cheque to write what they like.
And I don’t think it’s nit-picking to point out that a police officer doesn’t even need to assert offence: only that she or he “_thinks it might cause offence to somebody_”.
The Bill of Rights should have had its second reading yesterday.
https://eachother.org.uk/why-has-the-governments-bill-of-rights-been-shelved/
Even the government thinks it wouldn’t have got through in its present state.
Hmmm……
It’s not about the validity of it is it?
Many of us know that the UNDHR is valid:
‘the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency’.
‘the state of being legally or officially binding or acceptable’.
The real issue is who is listening?
Who is respecting?
Who is enacting?
Who has the power to do the above?
If the UK does not have a leg to stand on, who is delivering the corrective measure? Who is taking away the legs?
I don’t see anyone doing that. And until such a time, UNDHR is just words – as they have been for poorer countries for years that have been exploited whilst this charter has been in existence.
The only people who seem to have any rights are the corporations, their investors and the rich.
I notice that employees of ex-Prince Charles became ex-employees of ex-Prince Charles shortly after his erm…. “elevation” to the throne.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-staff-given-redundancy-notice-during-church-service-for-queen
Not a good look I have to say.
That said, it is good to see that King Charles’ III heart is in the right place – his wallet.
I wonder what these now ex-employees think about royalty and human rights (e.g. the right not to be sacked at the drop of a hat or cos somebody changes “position”).
Your caring new monarch…..
I agree that the arrest of protesters was wrong. And I think the names of the police officers involved should be published. As the Police Federation like to remind us, a sworn constable is an independent officer of the law, personally responsible for their actions.
Turning to the UN Declaration, take a look at article 29(2) – text below. It is a censors’ charter, just like the second paragraph of article 10 of the European Convention.
UN Declaration, 29(2): In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Or necessary protection of the promotion of harm to others, which Voltaire inappropriately ignored?
Yes, it could be used in that protective way – which those who are not free speech absolutists would see as an advantage. (I am an absolutist, but recognise that there are arguments against that position.) But it could also be used to stifle protests which presented no threat to anyone. And if anyone took the UK Government or a police force to court over this, I reckon that the UN Declaration 29(2) and the European Convention article 10, second paragraph, would be deployed in the Government’s defence.
As an aside on Voltaire, the “disagree but would defend your right to say” was a sentiment attributed to him by a biographer (S G Tallentyre, 1906). He actually said, in relation to a controversial book by Claude Adrien Helvétius, “What a fuss about an omelette” (letter of 24 December 1758, punning on omelette/homme de lettres) – that it was ludicrous to make a palaver over something that would do no harm to anyone. Likewise it was very silly of the police to make a fuss over a few placards.