| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.15 pm
The police representatives pointed out to the organisers that the main body of the police officers had already been deployed along the route originally planned, and that, because of the lie of the land, the new route was not suited to crowd control. They did not refuse to provide protection, but stated that, irrespective of the route chosen
or not to be chosen, it would be impossible to prevent counter-demonstrators from throwing eggs and disrupting both the march and the religious service.
During the mass, a large number of counter- demonstrators who it seems had not given the notice required under the relevant Act assembled outside the church and were not dispersed by the police. They disrupted the march to the hillside by mingling with the marchers and shouting down their recitation of the rosary. The same thing happened at the service celebrated in the open air. Some 500 people attempted to interrupt it using loudspeakers, and threw eggs and clumps of grass at the congregation.
At the end of the ceremony, when tempers had risen to the point where physical violence nearly broke out, special riot control units, which had until then been standing by without intervening, formed a cordon between the opposing groups, and that enabled the procession to return to the church.
Mr. Thompson:
We can see the parallel with Harryville and with Drumcree. However, to return to the case, we read that a second march was contemplated. The competent police authority gave permission for a second demonstration against abortion to be held in the cathedral square in Salzburg on 1 May 1982. An anniversary meeting was due to be held in the square by the socialist party on the same day, but it had to be cancelled because notice of it had been given after the applicant association had given notice of its meeting.
The demonstration began at 2.15 pm and ended with an hour of prayers inside the cathedral. At about 1.30 pm, some 350 people angrily shouting their opposition had passed through the three archways that provided access to the square and gathered outside the cathedral. A hundred policemen--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. I can understand the hon. Gentleman citing cases in other countries, but to go into the detail of two cases that occurred in Austria is stretching the point. I do not mind a mention of those matters, but the full detail of the incidents should not be brought before the House.
Mr. Thompson:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am coming to the end of my remarks, but the incidents are extremely important because they relate closely to the situation in Northern Ireland.
To conclude the account of the second incident, other trouble was caused by sympathisers of an extreme right-wing party, the NDP, who voiced their support for Plattform. The police asked the association chairman to order those people to disperse, without success. In order to prevent the religious ceremony from being disrupted, the police cleared the square.
After the matter went to the court--
Rev. Ian Paisley:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think you will admit that my reference was at least to Northern Ireland, and not far afield.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I think that the hon. Member is raising a matter of history rather than a point of order.
Mr. Thompson:
The decision of the court is extremely important in establishing European law in this instance.
Under this Government, the situation seems to have changed. Now we must appeal to the European Court. What it said was important. In its decision of 17 October 1985 on admissibility, the Commission dealt at length with the question whether article 11 implicitly required the state to protect demonstrations from those wishing to interfere with or disrupt them. It answered that question in the affirmative.
A demonstration may annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote. The participants must, however, be able to hold the demonstration without having to fear that they will be subjected to physical violence by their opponents. Such a fear would be liable to deter associations or other groups supporting common ideas or interests from openly expressing their opinions on highly controversial issues affecting the community. In a democracy, the right to counter-demonstrate cannot extend to inhibiting the exercise of the right to demonstrate.
Genuine, effective freedom of peaceful assembly cannot, therefore, be reduced to a mere duty on the part of the state not to interfere: a purely negative conception would not be compatible with the object and purpose of article 11. The judgment of the court establishes the right of peaceful marching and peaceful assembly. Yet the restrictions in the Bill prevent the exercise of that right. Restrictions can be placed only on rights that are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society. We supposedly live in a democratic society.
A second court case, the Ezelin case, establishes the right of peaceful assembly. The court found:
It is also argued that, if people do not follow certain conditions and guidelines established under the code of conduct, their rights will be eliminated. That is a complete negation of our rights and our liberty. That is why we oppose clause 7 and why I have proposed new clause 1--a proper clause--to replace it. If accepted by the Government, it would go a considerable way towards making the Bill more acceptable to Unionists. The clause says that the powers of the commission to apply restrictions on a parade should be similar to those which the Government have now accepted should be applied in
relation to an objecting demonstration. In other words, restrictions should be based only on public order issues. New clause 1 says:
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim):
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the absolute right to process as enshrined in European law is established and confirmed, protest will be less likely?
Mr. Thompson:
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The problem is that the Government and police leaders have attacked those rights. That is what has caused all the trouble.
I refer also to the Human Rights Bill, which is currently in the House of Lords. Clause 19 states:
Mr. Thompson:
You misunderstand me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am reading from clause 19 of the Human Rights Bill, which is at present in the House of Lords and which is relevant to the legislation that we are considering tonight.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That makes the situation even worse. The hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to new clause 1, which he has proposed. This is not a Second Reading debate; it is the Report stage. I must confine the hon. Gentleman's remarks to new clause 1.
Mr. Thompson:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be pleased to hear that I am drawing my remarks to a close.
"the freedom to take part in a peaceful assembly . . . is of such importance that it cannot be restricted in any way . . . so long as the person concerned does not himself commit any reprehensible act on such an occasion."
They are the rights and the privileges that we should enjoy as citizens of the United Kingdom and as citizens of Europe. The restrictions outlined in clause 7 contravene our liberty. It is entirely unacceptable that a person's right to march, to process and to demonstrate should be negated by
"any impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community".
The court cases to which I referred negate that stupid argument.
"the likely actions of those taking part in the parade may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community; or
We believe that those conditions, which are similar to those that apply in England and Wales, should be the only ones that the commission uses when making a determination and placing restrictions on a parade.
that the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or do an act they have a right not to do".
"A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before the Second Reading of the Bill--
in other words, it is a statement of compatibility--
(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights"--
"or
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is reading from clause 19, but we are dealing with new clause 1. We cannot range too widely on Report.
(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
This statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister"--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |