Thread by @AdamWagner1

This is a highly illiberal measure. Preventing people exercising their free-speech rights in advance because they are ‘disruptive’ is fraught with risk for a democratic society. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…

It is understandable that in the heat of the moment people want to “crackdown” on disruptive protests, but protests are by definition disruptive. This law would, I assume, authorise the detention of a protester to prevent them attending a protest. That is illiberal.

This government is already attempting to pass laws which criminalise “noisy” protests. Our law is already finally balanced to protect free-speech and ensure police have powers to prevent illegal conduct arising from protest. These new laws tip the balance in the wrong direction.

It is important, also, to remember that many of the protests which have been the most “disruptive“ in recent years have also been contrary to the government‘s political positions, which means any attempts to restrict them should be met with even more suspicion

Where this ends up is that police and courts will have to decide which protesters should be banned from protesting. Given all protests are disruptive, which will they prioritise? No doubt the ones the public are clamouring against. But important causes have often been unpopular.

That is why we have to keep a very careful balance between the right to free expression and the powers of law-enforcement.

Disruptive protest plays a key role in our democracy and should not be controlled by the police or the Home Secretary.

Protest Banning Orders were rejected in March 2021:

"This proposal essentially takes away a person’s right to protest and we believe banning people from attending peaceful protests would very likely to lead to a legal challenge".

Who said that? Liberty? No, the Home Office!

This is the report

"we believe it unlikely the measure would work as hoped" - The Home Office 🤦‍♂️

justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-con…

HT @IanDunt