🚨I wanted to raise the alarm on some important new amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which the government has quietly tabled (thread)
In short, there are five big changes which will very significantly limit the right to protest. The government will say these are a response to Insulate Britain but in reality these are aimed at any large-scale disruptive protest like @ExtinctionR and Black Lives Matter
First: making "locking on" and "being equipped for locking on" criminal offences
Second, increasing the potential sentence for wilful obstruction of the highway to 6 months in prison
Third, making "obstruction etc of major transport works" a crime. This is extremely wide. It includes obstructing "taking any steps that are reasonably necessary for the purposes of facilitating, or in connection with, the construction or maintenance of... major transport works"
Fourth - really big one, a new power for police to stop and search protesters if they suspect they are going to commit a public nuisance and various other wide offences - this is a licence to stop and search protesters. All other stop and search powers relate to serious crime
And if that wasn't enough, there is also a stop and search power *without suspicion*, similar to those available in areas where there is a surge in violent crime (under s.60 of the Justice and Public Order Act 1984). This is treating protest like its a social like knife crime
Fifth, another sinister one, "serious disruption prevention orders" - basically imports the tactic used in serious crime, terrorism, sexual crime and anti-social behaviour of imposing court orders to restrict the activities of individuals. But now it will be applied to protest
This will be available for a court to impose on anyone who convicted of 2 protest-related offences, effectively a *protest banning order*. And offences can include breaches of court injunctions, another increasing tactic of government to restrict protest
So, these amendments hugely increase the power of the police and public authorities to prevent protests, disrupt activities at protests and restrict the activities of protesters.
I think this is being debated in the House of Lords tomorrow.
As always with laws restricting freedom of speech, it is useful to imagine them being used to prevent the expression of views you care deeply about. These laws are so generalised they could seriously disrupt any protest movement, if the govt/police want to.
A law which should strike fear into any dual national or those who can obtain alternative citizenship (including Jewish people so me). Arendt said there could be no human rights without citizenship - the “right to have rights”. It should *never* be removed without due process
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.”
This is the new Clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill. Allows the Home Secretary to avoid giving notice of stripping somebody of citizenship, also known as civic death, if “it would for any other reason not be reasonably practicable to give notice” publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill…
The statements Azeem Rafiq made 10 years ago were plainly antisemitic. He has apologised. That issue (which arose I guess because of increased scrutiny from being a whistleblower) has no bearing at all on the *truth* or *implications* of the racism he experienced.
The world is complicated. eg. there are Jews who are racist and also experience inexcusable antisemitism. I think it is up to every person to face up to their own prejudices (which it sounds like Rafiq is doing) but nobody deserves to have their dignity violated in the way he has
I think social media has made us so personality focussed - obsessed - that we find it difficult to separate the person from the points they are making. I hope that this "revelation" doesn't undermine any of the important lessons we need to learn from his experiences.
I know people don't like Insulate Britain's tactics but we also need to consider 'persons unknown' injunctions are a kind of private criminal law system available to companies and public authorities who get to draft laws (if approved by courts) and then bring private prosecutions
This is fundamentally different to our democratically elected lawmakers voting in new criminal laws through parliamentary process. Injunctions are usually unopposed, little or no debate over the impact on rights to protest, sentences of up to 2 years imprisonment if you breach
The reality is that parliament's approach to obstructing the highway has been that prison sentences are not available. Rather than change the law through parliament, the department of transport obtained a private injunction.
This is a huge moment - the first time, as far as I know, that non-violent protesters have been imprisoned for contempt of court after breaching a 'persons unknown' injunction. I hope they appeal
* hope they appeal to ensure that the higher courts review the freedom of speech elements of these sentences. I am not condoning the protest tactics (or making any comment), but this is an important moment legally which shouldn't be swept up in public anger
My concerns about the injunctions which have been breached
Quite horrified to see the Home Secretary on the front pages blaming the “legal services industry” for the Liverpool hospital bomber still being in the UK. BBC reporting he had his appeal rejected in 2017 so unclear why Home Office hadn’t removed him
And even so, it is pure political opportunism to say the asylum system was somehow to blame for someone deciding to blow themselves up outside of a Children’s Hospital without knowing the full facts and motivations. It’s grotesque
What does the Home Secretary think that stoking anger against lawyers in a terrorism situation, which plainly has absolutely nothing to do with lawyers, will achieve? For her cheap little political point lawyers will get targeted by angry members of the public
The most simple definition of the rule of law is that those who make the law are also bound by it
It is an obvious breach of that principle when lawmakers choose to change the law (parliamentary standards rules) to protect a lawmaker who has already been found in breach of them
The fact that the rule and findings in question relate to corruption, and the change will protect an individual from findings of corruption, goes to show how serious a breach of the rule of law this is.
And the worst part is that internal parliamentary anti-corruption rules are *entirely* the responsibility of parliament. The Bill of Rights 1689 likely prevents any court challenge, so this is the end of the matter, subject to public stink.