In one huge sprawling Bill the government is again trying to rush through legislation which erodes basic human and legal rights.  We focus here specifically on their proposal to ban ongoing anti-war protest in Parliament Square. 

It targets, first of all, Brian Haw’s extraordinary and visually impressive three-and-a-half-year, 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week peace camp, and the two year old weekly Community Speakout of the Global Women’s Strike.  Both bear witness to the appalling suffering and death of children, women and men in Afghanistan and Iraq by the US-UK governments.  They also give voice to veterans and refuseniks of these and other wars, and remember the many slaughters in Palestine, the Congo, Sudan, Uzbekistan and elsewhere which are being allowed to continue.

The excuse for the proposed ban is that the protesters’ noise is preventing Parliament from working!  In fact loudspeakers are used only on Wednesdays from 5.30-7pm.  The police have repeatedly checked noise levels and found that the speakout cannot be heard from inside Parliament, and no one has commented on Parliament Square’s on-going loud traffic.

This attempt to ban anti-war protest must be seen in the light of the illegal war in Iraq and of Belmarsh, the British Guantanamo ruled illegal by the Law Lords.  It has wide implications for everyone’s legal and human rights and is being widely opposed by organisations and individuals – see separate list. 

·     A deliberately misnamed government consultation document, “Modernising Police Powers to Meet Community Needs,” with a deliberately short consultation period, included a proposal to “impose conditions on all demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament Square”.

·     The proposal has now been incorporated into a revised Sessional Order (passed 23 November 2004) and into new anti-mafia legislation, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, not only criminalising peaceful, principled, political protest but conflating it with “serious organised crime”.

·     Without any reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Sessional Order gives police powers to prevent any activities that “hinder Members by any means in the pursuit of their Parliamentary duties in the Parliamentary Estate”. 

·     Peter Hain, speaking for the government in the debate about the Order, said, “a change of law is needed, particularly to deal with the noise.”  A number of MPs challenged the assertion that loudspeakers and megaphones could be considered to “hinder” MPs, and that the Order referred not to Parliament but to “the Parliamentary Estate,” that is including Parliament Square (Hansard, 3 November 2004). 

·     The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill’s committee stage began on 11 January, immediately after the Christmas recess.  There will be another session on 13 January 2004 -- further sessions have not yet been announced, but we have been told that the government intends to guillotine discussion on or before 20 January.  Why the haste?  Is that part of preparation for the election?

·     With the Bill, the government proposes to give the police new powers to control protests that “hinder” access to or are disruptive of the workings of Parliament, or which “spoil the visual aspect or enjoyment” of Parliament Square (Clause 123 (2) (a), (b) and (c)), or within one kilometre of the Square (Clause 123 (10)).

·     The police would have the power to prevent protests, or specify the period of time that they may happen and the noise level (123 (4) (a), (b) and (c)).  If found guilty of organising an “illegal” demonstration, a person could be imprisoned for up to a year (Clause 124 (4) (b)).

·     The government’s attempts to stifle dissent and protest have escalated over the last couple of years.  A raft of repressive laws makes it less than “respectable” and even criminal for the public to protest.  Demonstrators are routinely corralled and photographed even though the courts have ruled some such police actions illegal.  The right to travel freely has been curtailed. 

·     Parliament Square has seen many long-running demonstrations, starting with the picket for the extradition and trial of Chilean dictator Pinochet (shamefully freed by then Home Secretary Jack Straw).

·     Other long-term demonstrators, outside South Africa House and Greenham Common, exercised the right to protest against apartheid and a US military nuclear presence.  In common with other long-term demonstrations in Parliament Square, it is right, and must remain legal, that people protest outside the institution held responsible for injustice.

·     Government attempts to prevent long-term demonstrations in Parliament Square are despite “Mr. Justice Gray’s judgment on 4 October 2002, in which he declined to give Westminster Council an injunction [to prevent Mr Haw from pursuing his protest] citing article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights”, (Alex Salmond MP, Hansard, 3 November 2004).

·     Despite this precedent ruling based on freedom of speech which was won by Mr Haw, and despite support for Mr Haw and the Community Speakout from within and outside Parliament, and internationally, the police have often refused to protect Mr Haw or his property from attack (Mr Haw has had his nose broken twice), and have in fact attacked him and his property. 

·     “Opposition to what [Mr Haw] is doing out there has arisen because some Members do not like to be reminded of what they have done in this Chamber in terms of voting for war and the deaths.” John McDonnell MP (Hansard, 3 November 2004).

·     They “want to create an antiseptic tourist attraction that has nothing to do with democracy or participation”. (Jeremy Corbyn MP, Hansard, 3 November 2004).

·     The Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers points out that there is a substantial arsenal of police powers to regulate all forms of protest – the Public Order Act 1986, the Protection from Harassment Act 1998, the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Criminal Justice Act 1994, and the Justice and Police Act 1991.

·     Yet ex-Home Secretary Blunkett said, “It is daft that we should have to pass a law for the purpose, but that is what happens when people make a monkey of the existing law.” (Hansard, 7 December 2004).  The existing law includes the European Convention on Human Rights. 

·     Others have less contempt for the law: “As far as I am concerned, introducing legislation to outlaw such behaviour [long-term protest in Parliament Square] is in itself a crime.” (Lembit Opick MP, Hansard, 3 November 2004).

·     The final word goes to Brian Haw: “What is the sound level that is permissible to cry out against genocide?”

Legal Action for Women: law@crossroadswomen.net  020-7482 2496