I share this unusually long quote from the Guardian because of its significance:
Official warning letters have been sent to anti-monarchists planning peaceful protests at King Charles III's coronation saying that new criminal offences to prevent disruption have been rushed into law.
Using tactics described by lawyers as “intimidatory”, the Home Office's Police Powers Unit wrote to the campaign group Republic saying new powers had been brought forward to prevent “disruption at major sporting and cultural events”.
The new law, given royal assent by Charles on Tuesday, means that from Wednesday:
- Protesters who block roads, airports and railways could face 12 months behind bars.
- Anyone locking on to others, objects or buildings could go to prison for six months and face an unlimited fine.
- Police will be able to head off disruption by stopping and searching protesters if they suspect they are setting out to cause chaos.
”I would be grateful if you could publicise and forward this letter to your members who are likely to be affected by these legislative changes,” says the Home Office letter, which lists the creation of a number of new criminal offences under the government's much criticised public order bill.
Four questions.
First, was it just coincidence that these powers happened to come into force just days before the coronation?
Second, how is a constitutional monarchy consistent with the banning of protests about its legitimacy?
Third, why is blocking roads in support of the coronation acceptable but it is not permitted to do so to protest about it? Isn't there some considerable hypocrisy in that?
Fourth, do they really think arresting protestors this weekend would improve the standing of the monarchy?
Democracy is under threat everywhere. That is most certainly true here in the UK. These measures are a sure sign of that.
And for full disclosure, I should add that I have supported Republic, precisely because I do not believe in the eugenic exercise of power without accountability. I am not sure why any democrat would.
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:
Has there ever been a significant constitutional reform where those campaigning for change were not vilified by the rich, locked-up, beaten and killed?
Until the advent of Margaret Thatcher hypocritical Tories claimed that those same hard won reforms, changes that they had opposed root and branch, made Britain a beacon of civilisation to the rest of the world.
Since the Thatcher coup all reformers are once again the Enemy Within.
It is hard to say which claim is the most nauseating.
I think it is clear that the powers-that-be are very worried about one particular aspect of the current situation in the country; that people are becoming so frustrated at the lack of action on so many issues, from climate change to inequality, all of which demand political solutions which are not forthcoming, that they feel compelled to make strong protest.
It is clear from the way the past decade has unfolded, that the ballot box is not working as it should, and so people respond out of legitimate frustration, and once again, our rulers response makes a mockery of what we can now laughingly refer to as “British Values”.
I hope someone can correct me on this one, but I believe that a majority vote by the whole House of Commons could depose or abolish the monarchy, should the House desire it. That would be an interesting situation.
I say this as an ardent republican – there would be nopoint in abolishing the monarchy unless there was already in in exixtence a draft constitution.
If he had ny honour and respect for the democratic condition, William would declare that he did not intend to succeed to the throne when Charley Boy dies. Instead, he could advocate a republican constitution, and offer himself up as an interim president until the new constitution was agreed, with a president German/Irish style, rather than US/French style, then he could legitimately stand as a commoner and as candidate for the presidency, four year term of office. What pride he would legitimately have were he to be elected president of the United Republic of England and Wales/Britain/Saxocymru, with official residence in a wing of Buckingham Palace, and Windsor/Balmoral/Sandringham etc sold off for the benefit of the NHS etc.
But he won’t do that.
The legislation seems to be clearly targeted at XR type actions which it was probably written in response to and gives such actions more legal consequences. If anything it’s fair play letting them know, anti monarchists will perhaps have different tactics anyway.
It’s not fair play
It is heavy-handed law
It’s a typical tactic: choose a scenario where a good number of people will support you – eg disruptive road blocking to protest about climate change – and design legislation to restrict it. Then almost “by accident” extend the scope to include multiple other scenarios where you know there would have been much less support. What’s it called? “Scope creep”?
We are seeing the same tactic in legislation to restrict cyber privacy. “Let’s protect children against pornography!” Who could be against that? Then suddenly it seems that a lot of social networks are threatening to abandon the UK because of laws against private messaging.
Wikipedia thinks it may have to block UK use because of they law
When things like this happen, we are actually getting a glimpse of the REAL world we inhabit.
That world is created by unaccountable forces who believe in their absolute right to rule and decide on the titbits the rest of us have.
What is obvious to me is that they are calling time on whatever in their wisdom they have allowed us to have. They are out to get as much for themselves as they can, as unopposed as possible.
We – the majority – need to call time on them.
It is becoming increasingly easy and acceptable for people to say they don’t really believe in democracy.
That people are saying they don’t believe in democracy is understandable when what is being practiced in the U.K. is a barely recognisable form. We need voting reform, so that the majority of voters feel like their voices are heard, and reform of the HoL so that it can’t be continually altered by whichever party is in government. When putting your x in the box gets you nothing, why would you think democracy exists?
GENEVA (27 April 2023) – The Public Order Bill, is incompatible with the UK’s international human rights obligations regarding people’s rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warned on Thursday.
“This new law imposes serious and undue restrictions on these rights that are neither necessary nor proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose as defined under international law. This law is wholly unnecessary as UK police already have the powers to act against violent and disruptive demonstrations,” Türk said.
“It is especially worrying that the law expands the powers of the police to stop and search individuals, including without suspicion; defines some of the new criminal offences in a vague and overly broad manner; and imposes unnecessary and disproportionate criminal sanctions on people organizing or taking part in peaceful protests,” he added.
The High Commissioner drew particular attention to Serious Disruption Prevention Orders introduced by the law that allow UK courts to ban affected individuals from being in certain places at certain times; being with particular people; or using the internet in certain ways, and could lead to the individual in question being electronically monitored to ensure compliance. It is especially concerning that such orders can be made against people who have never been convicted of any criminal offence.
“Governments are obliged to facilitate peaceful protests, while, of course, protecting the public from serious and sustained disruption. But the grave risk here is that these orders pre-emptively limit someone’s future legitimate exercise of their rights,” the High Commissioner said.
“I am also concerned that the law appears to target in particular peaceful actions used by those protesting about human rights and environmental issues. As the world faces the triple planetary crises of climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution, governments should be protecting and facilitating peaceful protests on such existential topics, not hindering and blocking them,” Türk stressed.
“The passage of this Bill regrettably weakens human rights obligations, which the country has long championed in international fora. I call on the UK Government to reverse this legislation as soon as feasible,” he said.
Thank you
They are right
Graham Smith did extremely well on The Jeremy Vine show yesterday making the case for replacing the Monarchy succinctly and persuasively. He also rebutted several factual errors and misconceptions.
He is good
This is his moment
Imagine if significant numbers did come out in protest and the reaction was the type of police riot we have grown accustomed to seeing. That would not look good when broadcast on the news programmes regardless of the spin the broadcasters tried to put on it. Oh wait…… would it get broadcast at all?
Some commentators are quick to express the perceived unfairness in having to pay for the BBC licence fee even if they don’t consume any BBC content, citing the £159 cost (various discounts may apply).
Has any research been done into the annual cost to licence the monarchy? Maybe we should think about whether we should revoke that, first.
The Tories are ramping up monarchist fervour in order to divert attention away from the drubbing they will get in the local elections.
Helped by the BBC of course. Today’s lunchtime news was coronation, coronation and a puff piece on the awful Camilla. Obviously nothing much else is happening in the world.
There was gridlock around Trafalgar Square at lunchtime today (perhaps there always is, I’m a rare visitor). I thought maybe it was a Republican demonstration, but no, it was an anti-Ulez protest, which may explain why the dozen police I saw were taking no action.
The national anthem has words that only a servile peasant could sing – long to rule over us. The best answer I can give is with an Americanism – kiss my arse. I and only I alone am responsible for all my words, actions and thoughts, The cowardly peasant pleads – I was only obeying orders, well I don’t. I’m not even a republican – I’m a free man.
A real democracy is only possible when the majority of people are free thinking men and women not serfs with a medievil mind set, otherwise it’s just a sick joke. This royal family only came over from Germany because they were Protestants. They were potless and now they have enormous wealth that isn’t taxed.They give out ‘knighthoods’ to creeps who would crap themselves if they ever saw a battlefield – in the 21st century – both hilarious and pathetic. The whole chirade should be swept away leaving only reality in it’s place.
Unfortunately the electorate we have is not made up of “free-thinking men and women”. There is a majority in favour of the monarchy. Would you like to get a new electorate, to fit in with your idea of democracy?
I think we have enough major problems in this country, most of which we have some idea of how to solve them. These solutions could have popular support if they were well explained; some already do have this support. Education, health, food system, clean water, agriculture, legal system, new laws which constrain traditional freedoms, like protests and much more. By comparison, I just can’t get worked up about the formal figurehead we have. We would have to have one, whether he’s called President, King, or Lord High whatever. And while personalities don’t affect the argument, Charles III is likely to do a better job in representing the country and increasing its respect abroad than say, Johnson or Truss.
“I do not believe in the eugenic exercise of power without accountability” That is the core issue.
There’s an interesting article on Novara Media about Charles Windsor and his financial interests, he is literally rentier-in-chief of the UK, his job seems to be to own inherited stuff that he has never lifted a finger to earn – how anyone could respect him or how he’s lived his life is beyond me.