In a recent video shared on social media, Chris Philp MP, the minister for policing, made a show of signing a new law into existence. He emphasized that we live in a democracy and there are lawful ways to bring about changes in the law. However, Liberty, a human rights organization, contends that the law he signed was actually created unlawfully.
The newly signed law, called the “serious disruption” regulations, controversially alters the criteria for when the police can intervene and restrict protests. This marks another addition to the government’s series of measures that curtail protest rights. Under these new regulations, the police are granted nearly unlimited powers to shut down any protest that causes more than minor disturbance, significantly lowering the threshold for action compared to the previous wording.
Even prior to this change, the powers were already overly broad. The Metropolitan police recently boasted about imposing conditions on 125 “slow marches” in the past six weeks, resulting in numerous arrests and charges. With the new law in effect, restrictive conditions could be imposed even more frequently based on various factors such as the size of the protest or its location. Essentially, anything that makes a protest impactful could be grounds for restriction.
The timing of the government’s move raises questions. It seems like a calculated attempt to manipulate public frustration towards climate protesters and frame protest as a privilege that must meet certain conditions to be allowed. Liberty argues that protest is not a gift, but a fundamental right. What is truly at stake here is the potential loss of our right to protest simply because our protests gain popularity, are well-timed, or take place in prominent locations.
That is why Liberty has initiated legal action against the home secretary, Suella Braverman, for implementing these new regulations. Not only do they undermine our rights, but the home secretary also lacked the legal authority to create them in the first place.
A few months ago, parliament debated the meaning of “serious disruption” and rejected attempts by the government to lower the threshold for police intervention. However, Braverman reintroduced the same rejected ideas through a “statutory instrument,” sidestepping parliament’s decision-making process. This method prevented MPs and Lords from amending the regulations or considering evidence of their potential impact. A parliamentary committee recently raised concerns about this unprecedented use of making changes to the law.
In summary, the home secretary rushed through regulations that weaken our rights by disregarding parliament’s rejection. This action breaches the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and sets a dangerous precedent for lawmaking in our country.
This tactic may be new, but it follows a pattern set by this government. Over the past few years, they have consistently attempted to make it more difficult for the public to challenge those in power. Multiple acts have been passed that erode protest rights, voter ID requirements have been introduced, anti-strike legislation threatens workers’ rights, and a migration bill with detrimental consequences is being expedited.
This erosion of rights extends to the means by which we can challenge the government. They have made efforts to limit access to judicial reviews, as they often expose improper actions by authorities.
Accountability is crucial, which is why we must ensure this power grab is halted and that the government cannot weaken our rights by bypassing democratic procedures. Quite simply, the home secretary needs to repeal this law. Otherwise, we will see her in court.
(Akiko Hart is the interim director of the human rights organization Liberty)
[If you would like to submit a response on the issues raised in this article, you can email a 300-word response for consideration in our letters section.]
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
