Memorandum by Emma Sangster, Parliament
Square Peace Campaign (Ev 46)
Parliament Square Peace Campaign is a group
of supporters of Brian Haw's protest for peace and justice in
Parliament Square. We also support the right to protest in the
vicinity of Parliament without the restrictions imposed by sections
132-138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA).
Should Parliament be treated any differently from
any other part of the country in terms of managing protests?
The area around Parliament is at the heart of
decision-making in the UK and there should be no more restrictions
on protest in this area than the rest of the county. It is fundamental
to democracy that individuals and groups should be able to protest
without first getting authorisation from an authority about issues
of significance to them. Otherwise, the way is left open for political
interference—this has been evident in the policing of the
area around Parliament since SOCPA was introduced. And it is fundamental
to the effectiveness of protest that those making the law and
our parliamentary representatives can actually see and hear the
message of the protest.
Freedoms which we all take for granted today
have been won through protest and dissent, mostly with great opposition
from the authorities. This is recognised in the right to freedom
of expression and freedom of association now enshrined in the
Human Rights Act. These freedoms should not be contingent on the
place, the theme of the protest or any other matter. We feel that
SOCPA has introduced an assumption against protest in the vicinity
of Parliament with the police even harassing protests that have
been authorised, imposing unreasonable conditions and monitoring
every public expression of political opinion, however trivial.
This is on top of an increasing array of more general police powers
over protesters in recent years. The only way to reverse this
tendency is to legislate for a positive right to protest throughout
the country under which protests and other public expressions
of opinion are unrestricted unless there are very particular and
arguable reasons why they may not go ahead.
Would the repeal of sections 132 to 138 of the
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act give rise to a need for
new powers for the police or other authorities ?
There should be no new powers over protest given
to the police or other authorities. The Public Order Act grants
significant powers to the police and these been increasingly abused
by the police eg in penning protesters into a confined area without
regard for their rights or needs. Other recently introduced legislation
also grant significant powers and the requirements of the City
of Westminster and the GLA also restrict protest within Parliament
Square.
(i) Powers to ensure free access to, from
and around the Parliamentary Estate and to enable Parliamentarians
to discharge their roles and responsibilities
Almost all protests around Parliament are small
enough that they present no threat to free access to Parliamentarians.
On rare occasion, a very large demonstration may threaten access
in theory but, it is our opinion that a democracy should be mature
enough to acknowledge that a demonstration such as this would
be a valid expression of public opinion and is rare enough to
not warrant extra powers that can then be used against protests
of all sizes. With the redefinition of an assembly under the Anti-Social
Behaviour Act from 20 to 2 people, it appears evident that the
aim is to place the same restrictions on protests of all sizes,
no matter how small.
(ii) Powers to restrict the use of loudspeakers
After SOCPA was introduced, Brian Haw was granted
a license from the City of Westminster to use his megaphone at
certain times, including during Prime Minister's Question Time.
This is because the Council's exercise in measuring the noise
Mr Haw's megaphone emitted found that it was no louder than the
traffic noise.
It is an important dimension of a protest to
be able to project the message. Not being allowed to use loudspeakers,
even a megaphone, makes a demonstration far less effective and
reduces the organisers' ability to organise effectively. We believe
this is an unnecessary restriction for which there is no adequate
justification.
(iii) Powers to take account of the particular
security risk
Aside from SOCPA there are other police powers
that can be used to deal with security risks. More fundamentally
however, we question the assumption that demonstrations pose more
of a security risk around Parliament than other activities. The
court case in January 2007 in which Brian Haw challenged the SOCPA
conditions placed on his protest revealed that the police carried
out few security checks on Mr Haw's site in practice despite the
issue of security being their main argument for reducing his protest.
It would seem very short-sighted if theoretical
security risks, against which there is already significant forms
of deterrence are utilised to undermine our hard-won rights.
(iv) Powers to protect Parliament Square as
a world heritage site
We would ask if protest is incompatible with
the concept of "heritage". Many different kinds of activities
take place in the area around Parliament—not all are compatible
with each other, but each have a place. There is no defensible
reason why protest, the tradition of which is one to be proud
of, should be restricted because of preconceived and limited notions
of our common heritage.
The plans to restructure Parliament Square pose
concerns for freedom of assembly. Currently, it is not possible
to use the grassed area without permission from the GLA. Similarly,
permission must be sought to hold any sized protest in Trafalgar
Square. If the GLA become responsible for a greater part of Parliament
Square then this will have serious implications for the right
to protest without prior authorisation and raise all the concerns
that the SOCPA legislation raised.
(v) Powers to prevent permanent demonstrations
in Parliament Square
Brian Haw's display is recognised nationally
and globally as a landmark and achievement which people respect
enormously. It has been to the Government's discredit that they
attempted to silence his protest. The issues he raises still need
to be addressed and are still important to the people of this
country. Indeed it is unlikely that his protest would have been
sustained were it not for significant public support. Such forms
of expressions must not be ruled out in a democracy.
(vi) Ensure equal access to the right to protest.
The area around Parliament is large enough to
accommodate various protests at the same time. We are not aware
of any calls from protesting organisers to restrict one protest
because it crowded out another. We feel that this justification
for restrictions on protest was one conceived of inside Parliament
as the SOCPA legislation was being debated and has not been called
for by anyone else.
12 June 2008
| 
