Tag: judiciary

Celebrate protest


Amnesty webinar on the state of protest in Europe

May 2024

It seems that the UK is not alone in its attempts to stifle protest and passing laws to restrict individual’s abilities to protest. Recent tensions with ministers and some of their media supporters concerned Extinction Rebellion, Rwanda and the related issue of the boat people and more recently, the events in Gaza and the treatment of the Palestinians. Amnesty International recently hosted a webinar to look at the issue of protest and some of the points made are discussed below.

Protest has a curious position in British culture and law since there is no direst right to protest: it is not a specific human right. There is a right to free speech and a right of assembly and these combine to enable people to come together to protest.

The value of protest is something that seems to be forgotten. The anger at the noise of disruption of a protest march overshadows the fact that this is a means to enable people to highlight a cause of concern. There are some who complain about the disruption and who say that they would not mind a peaceful protest, it’s the noisy and disruptive ones they object to. The problem with a peaceful and noiseless protest which causes no disruption is that no one takes any notice. Many people report that visiting one’s MP or writing letters to them is largely a waste of time. It is also forgotten that nearly all social reforms in the UK have come as a result of protest, some lasting decades. The positive history of protest is not generally known or recognised. It is seen as a nuisance and something to be curtailed or even better, stopped.

Webinar

The results of the survey will be published on July 9th and it will show some regional trends which include casting protest as a threat, claiming it is a privilege rather than a right and the increasing use of supposed public safety measures to curtail them. They conclude it is generally getting worse with a heavy police presence used to intimidate. Complaints against the police and the use of excessive force are difficult because of the lack of identification.

A lot depends on language and protestors are frequently described as ‘rioters’ with no justification. There are also attempts to cast protestors as ‘illegitimate’.

One speaker from Clidef – with a focus on climate protest – spoke about the ‘pincer movement’. This includes new legislation introduced by government together with the stretching of old laws. Police action and powers have been strengthened as already mentioned together with the greater use of prison sentences against alleged offenders: 138 Just Stop Oil protestors have been imprisoned for example. They are also trying to use conspiracy laws.

Secondly, private actors and the use of SLAPP actions [Strategic Litigations Against Public Protest] which are a means to use the law to intimidate those seeking to take action against wrongdoers. They are a means by the wealthy to use the law to silence critics since they can afford to effectively bankrupt them with costs.

Thirdly, the judiciary and he might have mentioned the legal system itself. Judges have been in the firing line for not allowing those on trial to say why they were protesting, fearful no doubt that once a jury realises that they were promoting a climate action, they would acquit. The final speaker asked ‘who are they protecting? The activists or the companies?’

The theme of the webinar and the speaker contributions was that governments are increasingly dumbing down on protest whether it be the climate, Palestine or anything else. They give the impression of not liking dissent in any form and are using increasingly draconian tactics to inhibit, arrest and imprison those to engage in it.

Media

A theme not explored was the role of the tabloid media who almost without fail demonise protestors calling them things like ‘eco-zealots’, ‘eco-mob’, ‘a rabble’, and their actions amounting to ‘mob rule’. Article after article describes protests in entirely negative terms and seldom give readers much (in fact next to nothing) in the way of an explanation of why they are protesting and the nature of their cause. It is to be presumed that they are reflecting public opinion and the views of their readers. Recent reports on the climate are extremely worrying. The fossil fuel companies are able to mount expensive lobbying campaigns to ensure their interests are looked after and extraction can continue. Protestors do not enjoy this privileged access to those in power and taking to the streets is the only way they can be heard. It is a shame that sections of the media are not able – or are disinclined – to reflect this imbalance of power and the inevitable effects it will bring to the climate.

Our right to protest is precious and should be defended.

The Salisbury group was established 50 years ago

0

Hillsborough


Today, 15 April 2024, is the 35th anniversary of the tragedy

April 2024

Thirty five years ago today, 97 people died at the Leppings Lane end of Hillsborough stadium during an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. Once the immediate shock of the death toll had passed, much of the media and South Yorkshire police put the blame on the supporters and in particular those from Liverpool for the tragedy. This blame became the standard narrative and was part of the judicial narrative as well. Plentiful lies were told and a headline in the Sun newspaper has meant the paper is no longer sold in Liverpool to this day.

The copious lies told by the police meant inquests were thoroughly unsatisfactory and the families of those who died spent decades in an attempt to get justice. Why it has appeared on this site is because justice was not achieved until the right to life provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights, now part of UK law, came into force. That, together with funding support, meant the police could be cross questioned and a jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. Previous poor decisions by judges and a coroner were overturned. A report by the Hillsborough Independent Panel said:

“The disclosed documents show that multiple factors were responsible for the deaths of the
96 victims of the Hillsborough tragedy and that the fans were not the cause of the disaster.
The disclosed documents show that the bereaved families met a series of obstacles in their
search for justice“.

Today, in the light of the government’s desire to deport refugees to Rwanda – a final decision on which might be made in parliament this very week – will find that it is in direct conflict with ECHR. The Conservatives are divided on this and some, like local Devizes MP Danny Kruger, do not believe we need the court and object to Strasbourg effectively overriding our judicial system. He and others believe our system of justice based on the Common Law is sufficient protection. The prime minister Rishi Sunak in a recent statement believes that controlling immigration is more important than ‘membership of a foreign court’.

Common law, or indeed any law at all, did not save the Hillsborough families the decades of distress, dire judicial decisions, police lies and media denigration they have had to endure. The judicial system also failed to make anyone accountable for the wrongdoing and bad decisions which led to the disaster. It is interesting in researching this post and looking at the reports of the anniversary, how little or no mention is made of the ECHR in the the right-wing papers. Yet it was crucial in achieving justice for the families. Mr Kruger and others have a rosy view of our justice system despite what Conor Gearty refers to in a discussion of a succession of miscarriages of justice in his book On Fantasy Island*, ‘The role of judges in all this was either passive legitimisers of state abuse or – more scandalously – as drivers of wrong convictions in the first place’ (p40). He goes on to refer to how they seem somewhat impervious to ‘a succession of judicial debacles’ (ibid).

Hillsborough showed conclusively that we need the protections of the ECHR since our own legal system so often fails to offer protection to the ordinary citizen.

*Oxford University Press, 2016

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑